Des Browne: Deficits are falling each year. From last year to this year, and for each year for which figures are published until 2009–10, the UK deficit is lower than every deficit in the G7 except Canada, and is lower than the deficits of USA, France, Germany and Japan.
	With leave, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the whole House to pay tribute to my predecessor? As Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Paul Boateng oversaw two spending reviews with dedication and panache, and was known for his fairness, integrity and commitment to his job. As the right hon. Member for Brent, South, he served his constituents tirelessly for 18 years, increasing his share of the vote in every election since he was elected to the House in 1987. I am sure that the House would want to join me in wishing him well in the challenges that he faces in South Africa.

John Bercow: Given that many in Burkina Faso, Mali and Chad depend for between 30 and 40 per cent. of their export earnings on cotton, does the Chancellor agree that the continued and extortionate subsidy by the United States of its inefficient cotton sector damages massively the western central African economies' chances of meeting the millennium development goals? Would he accept that he will command support from the Opposition if he can use his influence with the Americans to bring an end to those subsidies and to give the poorest people in the world the chance to compete and to grow?

Gordon Brown: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have trebled aid for Africa over the last few years. I am aware that, owing to his association with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Union, the hon. Gentleman has both welcomed that and seen some of the good effects that it has produced.
	This is the first time that I have heard the hon. Gentleman describe the European Union as a third party—it may be due to the change that is taking place in the Conservative party—but if I were to talk about third parties, I would say that he should support the work of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. I think that on this occasion at least, the Conservative party should be generous enough to support the decision made by the European Union this week. It was an historic decision—that all 25 countries would play their part in doubling European aid between now and 2010. Even the poorest EU countries agreed to move their aid budgets to 0.17 per cent. That was a sign that even the poorer EU countries recognised their responsibilities to the rest of the world. I should have thought that at a time of reflection for the Conservatives, they would take the opportunity at least to welcome one thing that has come out of the European Union.

Gordon Brown: When the issue of debt relief was raised in 1996–97, no one ever thought that 100 per cent. write-off of bilateral debt would be possible. However, thousands of people, churches and faith groups in all constituencies around the country, sent out a message not only to Britain but to Germany, France, Japan and America to take action. There is absolutely no doubt that, when large numbers of people have got together to force the issue on to the agenda, it has made a difference.
	On one occasion, the German Finance Minister accused me of organising for thousands of postcards to be sent from different addresses in Britain to the German Finance Ministry and thought that it was part of an orchestrated Treasury campaign. We would never have been able to approve such a use of public money. However, that action did make a difference, as has the work of churches and faith groups in all countries, which is why every member of public who can should register their support for this campaign.

David Ruffley: May I draw the attention of the House to the Hansard for 27 November 1996? The then Labour shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr. Brown) said that
	"national insurance is a tax on ordinary families"—[Official Report, 27 November 1996; Vol. 286, c. 365.]
	Is that still the Chancellor's view?

John Healey: My hon. Friend takes a close interest in these matters, and he is absolutely right: we have introduced for the first time a tax credit for research and development in this country. It has been worth £700 million to British business since we introduced it. We have also put in place other tax measures, such as enhanced capital allowances, to support the sort of research, development and technology that he is keen to see. The real question, which relates not just to climate change but support for manufacturing, is whether we as a country are prepared to invest in the skills, innovation, research and development, science and business support that will secure our manufacturing for the future: the promises and spending that the Government have made, which the Conservative party failed to match during the election campaign.

John Robertson: May I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, welcome him to his new post and wish him all the best? Although unemployment has improved in Glasgow—1,100 more young people have been put into employment thanks to the new deal—it still has one of the highest unemployment rates of any city anywhere in the country. What does my hon. Friend propose to do to try to eradicate that unemployment in Glasgow? May I ask him to visit the city to see its problems for himself?

Geoff Hoon: As ever, a long list from the Liberal Democrats. I shall do my best to deal with each and every item on it—perhaps not this week, but in due course. The House established the Modernisation Committee in the previous Parliament and, although this is a matter for the House, I would strongly support any initiative to re-establish it. It seems to me that although valuable work has been done, further work is needed. That will include a consideration of many aspects of the management of business.
	As far as electoral reform is concerned, I met yesterday with representatives of the Electoral Reform Society and we discussed aspects of their proposals. When the hon. Gentleman talks about integrity and principle, I am always unaccountably struck by the fact that the Liberal Democrats always support a particular form of electoral representation in the electoral system that just happens to favour them. That must be a coincidence.
	I recognise that there are something like five different electoral systems in operation in the United Kingdom. That is being considered in a review by officials in the Department for Constitutional Affairs. It is important that the House allows that review to continue so that we examine properly the practical effect of those systems, rather than simply reaching for the system that favours one political party in the process. I know that the Liberal Democrats would not dream of doing that. That would be a terrible accusation, and I do not make it.
	There are contingency plans in the event of the House having to be recalled when the Chamber is not otherwise available. I am certain that when it comes to Question Time for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, he will demonstrate the wide range of responsibilities that he enjoys. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will be able to ask him about them.

Andrew MacKinlay: The Government pride themselves on the amount of scrutiny to which the Prime Minister and Ministers submit themselves on European matters, but that relies on the Liaison Committee, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) referred, and the Select Committees being up and running. It is not paradoxical that during the United Kingdom presidency of the European Union, there appear to be no plans to provide for scrutiny by this place, for additional statements and for the submission of the Prime Minister to examination on the presidency? Pending the setting up of the Select Committees, which should be done with expedition, may I invite the Leader of the House to consider extraordinary innovative arrangements, whereby the Ministers principally concerned, including the Prime Minister, make themselves available, in public, to Members of the House of Commons for probing and scrutiny in the Committee Room?

Geoff Hoon: I cannot entirely agree with my hon. Friend's final suggestion, but I recognise the importance of this subject not only to London Members but to all those whose constituents who regularly visit the London Eye. This is a sensitive commercial matter, and we obviously hope that it can be resolved satisfactorily in the interest of preserving a tourist attraction for the people of London and the rest of the United Kingdom.

Julie Kirkbride: Can we have an urgent debate on the situation at MG Rover? I have raised this issue before, and there is considerable concern about the pensions scheme at the company. I believe that the pensions are safe under the pension protection plan and, in fairness, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has also said that, but only to the press and not in the House. I tabled a question to the Secretary of State on this issue on the first day that we came back, to ask whether we could have a statement on the application of the pension protection plan. A response in Hansard would have given reassurance to the workers that the plan was going to apply to their pensions, but I have yet to receive an answer. That is completely unacceptable. There are many questions that need to be answered. Did the directors take money out of the company that belonged to it? Should that money now be in the pension scheme, if the Rover directors took money to which they were not entitled? If the pension protection plan is to apply, other people's pensions will have to be levied in order to pay the shortfall at Rover, which is clearly unfair to those other people. May we have an urgent debate in the House on this matter, to ensure that there is no Government cover-up and that we all know the full facts?

Julie Morgan: May I also raise the issue of smoking in public places? Is my right hon. Friend aware that yesterday there was a cross-party vote in the Welsh Assembly in favour of introducing a ban on smoking in all enclosed workplaces and public places with a few exceptions such as prisons and nursing homes following the report of the cross-party working group ably chaired by Val Lloyd, the Assembly Member for Swansea East? I urge my right hon. Friend to introduce a public health Bill in England as soon as possible. Can he assure me that such a Bill will provide an opportunity for the Welsh Assembly to carry out the report's recommendations?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for granting me the opportunity to raise this matter. In Treasury questions, the Chancellor referred to press releases issued by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and myself. My hon. Friend has already said that he was misquoted. I, too, was misquoted. My election manifesto says:
	"In the Cotswolds we have seen a huge erosion in our way of life, with farmers, country sports, small and special schools, post offices, pharmacies all under threat and our young people cannot afford . . . housing."
	That is a very long way for calling for more money for farmers. In the gentlest possible way, may I suggest that if one hon. Member or right hon. Member, however important he is, quotes another Member, he ought to do so correctly?

John Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) are aggrieved that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has quoted, apparently inaccurately, from their election addresses. I seek you guidance, Mr. Speaker, because I am concerned that the Chancellor is behaving in a thoroughly unequal and discriminatory fashion. I feel sorely let down and missed out, because he has not quoted from my election address, which is a model of one-nation conservatism, and I commend it to him.

Angus MacNeil: I hope that hon. Members will be patient and kind for a few moments while I quote from the language of Eden:
	"A nich labhairt san a tha e a toirt toileachas dhomhsa an diugh m'oraid a thoiseachadh ann an cainnt m'oige, caint a thug m'athair dhomh is san tha mi a nis fior thaingeil gu robh e daigeann a deanamh cinnteach gum biodh canan mo sgire agam.
	Si Gaidhlig an cainnt Cheilteach a rinn Alba na dhuthaich air a bheil sinn eolach an diugh. Se na Gaidheil a tha againn oirnn fheinn ach chuir na Romanaich Scotti oirnn mar a chuir na Iriquois 'Eskimo' air na h-lnuit.
	Thug Gaidhlig is da channanas iomadh buanachd dhomhsa. Tha i a deanamh ceangal ri mo charaidean bhon Chumrigh—ged nach tuig an da chainnt Cheilteach a cheile agus tha i a'cuimhneach dhuinn ceangalaichean ri Eilean Mhanain is ri Eirinn."
	I thank hon. Members.
	In translation, it gives me great pleasure to begin my speech in Gaelic, the language taught to me by my father, and I am grateful for his determination, and my mother's support, to ensure that Gaelic is the language that made Scotland a distinct entity. We Gaelic speakers call ourselves the Gaels, and have done so throughout history. The Romans called us the Scotti, however, in the same way that the Iroquois named the Inuit Eskimos. Gaelic is now spoken by only about 60,000 people in Scotland and I am glad to be one of them. Being bilingual has given me many benefits, not least an empathy with the Welsh, although the two Celtic languages relate to each other in the same way as the Germanic languages of English and German. My sort of Gaelic, however, is closely related to that of the Isle of Man and Ireland.
	I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor, Calum MacDonald, whom Labour Members in particular remember fondly, I am sure. Calum, a highland gentleman and a very nice man, was most gracious after my election, and I thank him for that.
	Na h-Eileanan an Iar stretches for 200 miles. Last week, as I flew from south to north, I experienced three different types of weather. Clearly, the new BBC weather forecast, as every fisherman told me at the fishing exhibition in Glasgow last weekend, is totally inadequate for our needs. I am pleased to say that the BBC sent me a letter, which I received yesterday, indicating a change of heart on the tilt of the map, which had rendered Scotland, 40 per cent. of the land mass of the UK, down to 10 per cent. of the screen area. I welcome the BBC's responsiveness to the needs of my many constituents. The BBC now needs to ensure that we have wind speeds, with directions and isobar charts, on all bulletins. I would like to thank other Members, from many parties, who signed my early-day motion calling on the BBC to think again.
	Lewis is the biggest and most populated of the islands, with almost 20,000 people. Fish farming is now the largest employer, although Harris tweed remains an important industry. Travelling south, one reaches Harris, which is currently suffering the loss of around 70 jobs from the closure of the salmon processing plant on Scalpaigh—a problem that, in per capita terms, is far worse for the area than the closure of the MG Rover plant is for the midlands.
	Off the west coast of Harris is Taransay, where, as many Members might remember, the television programme "Castaway" was filmed. Over the sound of Harris is Berneray, where the illustrious Prince Charles once spent a spring gainfully employed planting potatoes. Berneray is linked by causeway to North Uist, which in turn is linked to Benbecula, South Uist and on to Eriskay. There has been concern throughout Uist that the linking of the islands with fixed links, leaving no gap for tidal flow, exacerbated the effects of the storms on 11 January, causing the sea to bank on the west coast of Uist, with devastating effects on Iochdar in South Uist and the tragic loss of five people—three generations of the same family. The effects of causeways should therefore now be examined to see whether they interact with the tides and storm surges.
	To get home to Barra from Uist, I can take the second ferry that links the constituency. The ferry leaves from Eriskay beside the silvery white beach where Bonnie Prince Charlie started his epic and, sadly, failed adventure. On Barra is the famous cockle strand, the Traigh Mhor, which in famine times 150 years ago fed many hundreds. The beach is now Barra's airport, and when one is there, places such as London or Glasgow can feel quite remote, as one can only get to them at low tide. Transportation, and its associated costs, is a pressing problem for the islands and one of the main reasons for depopulation. Sadly, the finest scenery in the UK cannot retain people on its own. In the past 10 years, my constituency has lost 11 per cent. of its population—more than any other in the House, I believe. That caused not by geography, but by politics. Ireland is gaining population. Iceland's population grew over the 20th century, as did Norway's. The Faroe Islands trebled its population in the 20th century. Scotland generally suffers from not being an independent country; our Parliament does not even have the powers of the Isle of Man.
	In the short term, beyond a constitutional change, there is a pressing need for road equivalent tariff to lower our ferry fares and give our islands the same chance, opportunities and success as those in western Norway. For our air services, we need public service orders on the Benbecula and Stornoway routes to complement the Barra route, to make fares more affordable to the general public.
	A former governor of the Bank of England, Eddie George, once said that unemployment in the north was a price worth paying for economic stability in the south. As Ireland to the west has shown, however, it is possible to benefit what were once considered to be the political and economic fringes, as long as we are not all stuck with the "one size fits all" economic politics of the sterling zone. Irish independence has been an economic win-win situation for both the United Kingdom and Ireland, as has Norway's independence for Norway and Sweden.
	The sentiments of the former governor of the Bank of England make me proud as Punch to be a member of the Scottish National party and to be here today—although that is tempered by the fact that on my first day I was taken to Westminster Hall and reminded of the fate of an earlier Scottish nationalist in these parts, William Wallace, who was hanged, drawn and quartered for his politics 700 years ago this August. I am not sure that I can match that courage; in fact, I am certain that I cannot—just in case some Members are getting ideas.
	In 1900, there were about 50 independent nations on earth. With the decline in imperialism, there are now about 200. I say to my fellow Scots that independence and progress travelled hand in glove during the 20th century, and will continue to do so.
	There is much more that I could have said about my constituency, my Labour predecessor and the need for Scotland to choose independence. Let me end, however, by pointing out that my majority at the election was 1441. It is not the first time that that number has troubled some in the House, and I wonder whether it will be the last.

Chris Grayling: I am grateful for the opportunity to press the hon. Gentleman on that. I gain the biggest buzz of all in my constituency when someone approaches me and says, "I could never vote for you; I could never vote Conservative; but a I am really grateful for the job you are doing." I am sure that the hon. Gentleman must have experienced the same feeling and that he would accept that it is possible for every MP to do a good job for every single constituent, regardless of how they vote.

David Heath: Absolutely. One of the greatest compliments that I was ever paid came from a teller in a blue rosette who stopped me at the polling station during the previous election—not this one—and shook me warmly by the hand. He said, "Mr. Heath, I am a Conservative, as you can see, but I want you to know that you are, in my opinion, the best Member of Parliament that we have ever had". I was grateful for that; it meant something to me—[Interruption.] Not everyone would say that, but this gentleman did. I nevertheless believe that there are electoral systems that unite the crucial principle of being connected to a community with fairness across the country.
	I recognise that there are both strongly divided and partisan views and some non-partisan views and that all are equally strongly held. Surely, however, we have a duty, as the elected House in this country, to examine the issue on behalf of the people out there who believe that the system is not working properly or who have simply walked away from the whole process, as evidenced by the degree of abstentionism in this country's elections. There are far too many who feel that democracy is just not delivering for them, which is a very dangerous thing.
	To move on from the electoral system itself, I want to mention the integrity of the voting system and problems with postal voting. I share the view that postal voting is, in its place, a useful addition to the opportunities available to the public. There were experiments in my constituency with all-postal voting for district council elections. It had an interesting effect and marginally increased participation, although there were, equally, problems on the other side of the fence. The difficulties that we experienced were clearly identified in our debates on pilot systems for the European Parliament before the whole electoral process started. The Government's insouciance and indolence meant that the proper safeguards that should have been put in place were not put in place, even though the Electoral Commission had said that they were necessary. That is why so many people felt that the system was being abused.
	It is surely critical to our electoral process that people feel that our system has integrity. We preach the lesson abroad all the time when we monitor elections in other countries, yet there are systems in this country that would never pass my scrutiny as a member of the parliamentary delegation to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. If I were monitoring an election abroad, I would write a damning report if I saw some of the abuses of electoral processes in this country. We must revisit those problems, together with the engagement of the general public and voting opportunities, as a matter of urgency. For example, we could reflect on the possibility of voting at weekends. It is common in many other countries and it may be right for us now in an age when everyone works through the week. As we all know, having knocked on many doors over recent weeks, it is rare to find anyone in on a weekday, yet it is a weekday on which we call an election. Does that make sense? I do not believe that it does.
	Finally, we need to connect all those issues up with constitutional reform. The Government must get to grips with the job that they have botched. They started to reform the upper Chamber, but have not completed it, yet such reform is integrally connected with what happens in this Chamber. It is not possible to define the form and functions of the revising Chamber until the primary Chamber can do its work of scrutiny effectively. I do not believe that it functions well at the moment. As a result of the application of guillotines and the refusal to allow enough time for important Bills on Report, far too much legislation passes through the House with only cursory examination. We should remember that Report is the only time when hon. Members on both sides of the House can raise important issues on the legislation of the day. Legislation can sometimes be critical to the life and liberty of their constituents, but if hon. Members do not have the opportunity even to speak to, intervene on or debate critical amendments, the House cannot be said to be doing the job that it is elected to do. Once again, I view that matter as critical to our electoral process.

Grant Shapps: I am grateful for the opportunity to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to make my maiden speech. It is a pleasure to do so immediately after my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker), who is a constituency neighbour. I know that he was concerned about making his first speech, and I congratulate him on a tremendous maiden speech which I thoroughly enjoyed.
	My predecessor in Welwyn Hatfield was a Labour Member and a Minister in three different Departments. Although politically we did not agree on many issues, she did her job, despite facing a serious illness during her time in the House, and did it very well.
	I have spent some time trying to become a Member of Parliament, standing for the first time in 1997. Unfortunately, I was selected in the not very promising—for a Conservative—seat of North Southwark and Bermondsey. At the time, my political mentor was Sir Rhodes Boyson. He was then the Member of Parliament for Brent, North and I am sure that many of my colleagues will remember him. After my selection, I phoned Sir Rhodes excitedly to tell him. He replied, "That's very good, Grant. You've been selected for a safe seat." I said, "No, Sir Rhodes, I was selected for North Southwark and Bermondsey." He said, "Yes, and now you'll be safe in the knowledge you can spend another five years in your printing company." He was absolutely right.
	When the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) was returned after the election in 1997, he said that I had received the lowest Conservative vote in the country. I have waited eight years to be able to correct that statement on the record: the hon. Gentleman was wrong because I had the third worst result for a Conservative candidate. I am glad to be able to put the matter straight.
	I am Hertfordshire born and bred and now have the privilege of representing the Hertfordshire seat of Welwyn Hatfield. I went to school at a state school, Watford grammar, and to Cassio college in Watford. Then I went to Manchester Metropolitan university, then called Manchester polytechnic. I was always anxious to go into politics and, in addition to starting a printing business, I was selected to fight Welwyn Hatfield for the first time in 2001. I made an impact on the result, but I did not have the killer benefit that I had in the election a few weeks ago when the Chancellor—I am sorry that he has now left the Chamber—was kind enough to visit the constituency and assist me to a 6,000 majority.
	Welwyn Hatfield constituency contains two new towns, Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne did, I shall give the House a quick tour of my constituency. There are several villages on the outskirts of the two towns, including Welwyn, Woolmer Green, Oaklands, Essendon, Brookmans Park, Welham Green, Lemsford and The Ayots, where George Bernard Shaw lived and wrote. The constituency is a nice area with many contrasts. It has some lovely open spaces, such as Stanborough park and lakes and the King George V park, which the concept of the garden new towns allowed for. On the other hand, we have significant difficulties and problems, with many neighbourhood shops that suffer from antisocial behaviour by so-called nuisance youth who hang around.
	When I surveyed the residents of Welwyn Hatfield last year, their No. 1 concern was antisocial behaviour, which topped the list by a long way and that is significant. I fought the election on that issue. I am sure that it is shared with other hon. Members and I intend to focus my attention on it.
	Another issue that loomed large in the election concerned the Queen Elizabeth II hospital, particularly the closure of children's accident and emergency at night time. As a local father of three, I find it unacceptable that I am now expected to drive my children in the middle of the night perhaps during some emergency to the Lister hospital in Stevenage, as do many of my constituents who are equally angered by this. I intend to represent them intensely on this.
	The university of Hertfordshire, in Hatfield, has grown large over the past few years. I welcome it and am pleased that it has made Hatfield its home. However, in many ways it is rather like a large elephant: it has a particularly big footprint. It is a friendly animal but when it puts its foot down, it does not realise what it is crushing. Many long-term residents have found themselves forced out of their own areas by the increased population of students. I do not blame the students. Insufficient accommodation on the campus is provided for them. There are huge problems in Hatfield of overcrowding, parking and properties rented by students falling into dilapidation.
	My constituency, like many others, contains many wonderful people—constituents who work selflessly. I am thinking of people like Brenda Beach. For the past 30 years she has run the Gateway club for people with learning disabilities with no recognition and unpaid. Then there is Sean Cox MBE. He spends his entire time raising funds so that on Christmas day 100-plus elderly and otherwise lonely people can have a wonderful lunch and take a present home. His entire year is spent doing nothing else. He is in many senses a hero of our community. For the past 30 years, Barry Clark has run the Breakes Manor youth club in Hatfield, helping to find constructive activities for children. He has done so through thick and thin—through changes in policy on youth services, this that and the other—which could otherwise have knocked him off course. I pay tribute to such people who make Welwyn Hatfield such a pleasant place to live.
	Finally, I am one of the few Members of the House who has the privilege of travelling home to my constituency each and every evening. It is a wonderful place to live and I look forward to being a strong voice for Welwyn Hatfield in Parliament.

Vera Baird: First, I take the opportunity to praise both new Members who have made excellent maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker), who showed us his energy and humour, is welcome in this House. He rightly praised his predecessor, Dame Marion Roe, who was a great parliamentarian and a good Minister. Of particular interest to me was her work on domestic violence and the like, long before such matters had come on to anyone else's agenda. The hon. Gentleman was right to praise her. He demonstrated that he will follow that hard act well in his own inimitable style.
	The hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) delivered a confident speech, which was most impressive. He did not appear to have a single note—unless, perhaps, he had notes written on some secret part of his anatomy. He, too, displayed a great deal of humour and, rightly, praised his predecessor, Melanie Johnson, who was an excellent Minister and, indeed, had difficulties to contend with. At this early stage, the hon. Gentleman has already demonstrated a close knowledge of his constituency—its people and its problems—and that he intends to campaign strongly for it. Both Members are very welcome to the House and I congratulate them both.
	I wish to speak for a short time about an exciting development project facing my north country constituency of Redcar as well as the Tees valley, for the achievement of which we may need some Government help. Teesport is the second largest port in the United Kingdom. It lies in my constituency and north-west of Redcar seaside town. Since its foundation in 1852 it has served the Tees valley. The Tees was the principal artery for the export of iron and steel in the industrial revolution. Iron was originally mined in Eston in my constituency and turned into steel at Grangetown and South Bank in my constituency and in Middlesbrough. Indeed, the amazing development of towns such as Middlesbrough during the industrial revolution was based on their closeness to the north sea and the availability of an excellent port. There continues to be a strong link between the river, the port and the steel industry.
	Last December I was privileged to attend the celebration for the export of the 1 millionth tonne of steel through Teesport from Redcar steel works. It was going to South Korea to be part of a ship being built by a company called Dongicuk. Now my steelworks has a 10-year contract to export all of its 3.5 million tonne capacity, much of which will go through the port to a foreign consortium. This is part of the reason why Teesport has developed rapidly to become the United Kingdom's second largest port, handling 54 million tonnes of cargo a year.
	Teesport is second only to Grimsby and Immingham and in 2002 it overtook London. It is significantly bigger than the fourth, Southampton, overall and, surprisingly for the north east, the port of Tyne—which people would probably think of as the biggest port there—is small in comparison. It deals with about 2.8 million tonnes of cargo a year, and the other ports are very small indeed. There are 530 direct employees at Teesport now.
	Teesport goes back to the industrial revolution and has gone through privatisation and a series of owners, but it started to kick off in 2000 when it was taken over by Nikko, appropriately described as venture capitalists; then there was a sale in 2004 and a flotation on the stock exchange. It has developed through that series of steps, increasing container traffic, for example, from 20,000 units in 2001 to 90,000 units in 2002. It has dynamic, ambitious management. In 2003 there was a need to open a second container terminal. It was opened by the Duke of York and, with additional secondary handling capacity, Teesport can now cope with 200,000 containers a year. It is the container traffic development opportunity on which I want to focus.
	The United Kingdom container market is expected to grow by about 5 per cent. a year to reach over 10 million TEUs—20 ft equivalent units. That is obviously a standard measure. The world container shipping market is growing rapidly and over the past few years has been fuelled by manufacturing in the far east, particularly in China. In the United Kingdom this deep sea increase in volume is growing fastest. The major existing United Kingdom container ports are Felixstowe, Thamesport, Tilbury, Southampton and Liverpool. In 2003, 74 per cent. of all deep-sea UK traffic went through Felixstowe and Southampton.
	Teesport is ambitious to share in the increase in the market. I want to emphasise that there is not a collision of interests between this northern port and the southern ports of Felixstowe, Harwich and London because we are talking about a share of a growing market. Teesport is keen to invest £300 million to expand its deep-sea container terminal to bring freight, essentially from the far east although also from elsewhere, into northern England and the distribution centres, which would be engines of job creation before the goods are sent by rail and road elsewhere.
	Interestingly, more than 2 million of the current units of deep-sea container trade that come into the country through the southern ports of Harwich, Felixstowe and London are destined for Birmingham and further north. According to the Government's figures, 60 per cent. of all freight traffic that comes through the southern ports is bound for Birmingham and the north. As road haulage costs, fuel prices, congestion and climate change increase significantly, there is obviously a great deal of interest in trying to change logistical patterns of that kind.
	Teesport estimates—this is music to the ears of anyone who comes from my part of the country—that this investment could generate up to 7,000 jobs in Tees valley, where although the steel industry is now doing well and the chemical industry is now thriving, our unemployment is still twice the national average. Teesport also estimates that it would take millions of lorry miles off the roads if northern goods were driven from northern ports rather than offloaded in the south and taken north. It would go some way to close the £29 billion economic output gap between the south and the north. It would improve access to the North sea ports. It would help end the capacity shortage at UK ports generally and it would stop what we in the north call southern discomfort, by cutting congestion on already over-congested roads and rail. It would also develop hundreds of acres of brownfield land, much of it left over from the steel industry in my area, which I have mentioned, in my area, whereas in the southern ports some development on green belt is likely to occur.
	Sounds wonderful—so what is the problem? Teesport will put in a planning application—known technically as a harbour revision order—very soon. The potential problem is that there is not currently a national ports strategy to look to strategic development of all the ports with all the implications that that development in different regions and sub-regions can have, although such a strategy is promised soon. There are currently well-advanced applications to expand immediately the three southern ports that I have referred to as the major container importers and exporters, because there is a need for overall capacity to increase.
	Let me emphasise again that there is not really any rivalry here; there is no intent to steal jobs—we are simply talking about coping with an expansion in container traffic. However, Felixstowe south has applied to increase its capacity by 1.8 million units—a very large amount indeed—and has had a public inquiry. Bathside bay, which is the other side of Felixstowe, has also had a public inquiry; it has a similar ambition to expand to a similar capacity. It has some problems, in that parts of it would be on a greenfield site. Shellhaven, which is in London, has also put in an application to expand by 3 million units. It will have some dredging and connectivity problems.

Vera Baird: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It seems to me imperative that, rather than looking individually at the three current applications and responding to them on the semi-local basis on which they would normally be dealt with, the Government should them aside for the time being while a comprehensive strategy emerges. It needs to emerge fast, so that they do not, as it were, hijack the agenda and hijack the strategic development of ports by just granting or not granting individual applications. So I definitely will welcome the hon. Gentleman's support because I intend to ask the Government to look very quickly at the formation of a national ports strategy.
	There has been some resistance in the locations of the southern ports applications to expand. As the hon. Gentleman knows, in Shellhaven there have been complaints that they do not need any more jobs there, and there have been complaints about threats to nature reserves and important historic sites elsewhere. However, if there is a strong view around the Shellhaven development that they do not need any more jobs there, it makes an interesting contrast to my own cry in my local press, where the potential of 7,000 new jobs was offered to Teesside, that this is capable of almost putting an end to our very local unemployment problems—so we have it in a nutshell why some development is urgently needed. It is a rational way to expand ports and not have the whole proposition jump-started by the granting of ad hoc consents.
	The Northern Way, a strategy backed by £100 million of development cash, recommends that we introduce a national ports strategy and that we take the opportunity to expand the share of cargo using the north's ports. Clearly, PD Teesport's planned expansion directly supports that important policy.
	The purpose of my speech this afternoon is to say how excited we are in my constituency and in Tees valley by this proposition; to point to the need for a strategy that will permit the careful consideration of where the development emphasis should be; and to put the Government on notice that I and my four colleague MPs in Teesside intend to campaign very forcefully for a national ports strategy soon. Because we believe that the business case for Teesport is absolutely clear, our aim is to ensure that this great development—which can reverse, even more fully than the Government's economic stability over the last seven years has done, the decline that my part of the country suffered under the preceding Government, and can be a huge contributor to making the economy of Tees valley much more dynamic—comes about. We shall be campaigning on that for the next few months.

Simon Burns: It is a particular pleasure to be able to congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) and for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) on extremely fluent and excellent maiden speeches. We all remember the horror and the trauma of having to sit around waiting to make our maiden speeches, but the fluency and effortless ease with which both my hon. Friends spoke suggest that they were either on pills or have nerves of steel that I did not have.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield will clearly be a strong voice for that constituency and I am sure that, over very many years, his constituents will benefit from his advocacy of their causes in the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne, in a very interesting speech, was perhaps a little too modest—characteristically so. He said that there were 3,000 Members of Parliament before he arrived here and there would probably in the next century be another 3,000, and that he would play a small part in the life of this parliamentary system. I think that that is characteristically modest of him because I am sure, from the way he spoke with affection and vigour on behalf of his constituents, he will represent them excellently in all our debates in the coming years.
	I am particularly pleased to speak in this debate because I believe it is important, prior to the beginning of the Whitsun recess, that we consider the issues behind a report that was published last week, and which received some notice but not that much. I refer to the Office of Fair Trading report on care homes for older people in the United Kingdom. For every hon. Member, the care of the elderly is of crucial importance and concern.
	We all believe, rightly, that elderly people must live with the dignity, respect and help, where it is needed, that they rightly deserve. Conservative Members also believe— although, certainly in our debates in the last Parliament, certain uncharitable Health Ministers would not give us the credit for it—that the most appropriate type of care should be given to our elderly citizens, and I am sure that Labour Members believe that, too. For many elderly people, domiciliary care in their homes, with a care package, is the most appropriate form of care.
	I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will relay to the Department of Health the fact that I am disappointed by the latest figures, which were published today. Despite the Government's fervent claims that they are committed to providing domiciliary care, those figures show that although the number of hours of domiciliary care given to individuals has increased, the number of individuals receiving that care has been reduced yet again. That is of concern.
	The OFT report raises a number of interesting and important issues that relate to transparency. Of course, for many individuals who require residential care, their needs come all of a sudden, possibly as a result of a stay in hospital, and many of them may still be in a confused state or recovering from illness and waiting to leave hospital. They are not always best able to cope and to take what are extraordinarily important decisions about their future life. What they must decide about is the home that they will live in for a number of years—we hope many years—and they and their families may not be in a position of ease and understanding to take the right decision at the time. That is why is it important that as much information as possible is provided to help them—of course, with advice from social services departments and the care homes themselves—to take the decision that is in their best interests for their long-term well-being.
	The recommendations in the OFT report must be considered seriously. We do not need a knee-jerk reaction where we must accept everything that is proposed, but we must certainly consider such proposals carefully. We must strike a balance between the nanny state—the immediate instinct of any interfering Government to throw legislation, rules and regulations at everything that is proposed—and what would be a genuine and helpful improvement in the situation that would facilitate people gaining access to more information, so that they could take rational decisions when they have to do so. That is why I urge the Government not to jump on any passing bandwagon and immediately say, "We've got to do this; we've got to do that".
	Heaven knows, most of us should have learned during the last general election campaign, when we were communicating with our employers, that the care home sector has been so overburdened during the past eight years by petty regulations and rules and by the need for Ministers to be seen to be doing something that it has crippled the ability of many homes to continue to exist and to provide the services and high quality care that our elderly population deserves.
	During the past eight years, more than 80,000 beds have been lost in care homes throughout the country. That is a disgrace. It is all right for Ministers to huff and puff, but it is deeply offensive to care home owners and their staff, who work day in, day out to provide the finest quality of care and quality of life for individuals, to hear people such as the former Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), making accusations about elderly people being banged up in care homes, and for a previous junior Health Minister, now the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), echoing his master's voice in the same derogatory terms.
	Care home owners are not keeping their client group banged up in care homes; they are seeking to provide the highest quality of care. I am glad that the Deputy Leader of the House nods in agreement. Given that he agrees with that statement, perhaps he would like to have a word with Health Ministers to ensure that such unfortunate slurs on those people who are doing so much good for our elderly population stop being made from the Dispatch Box, so that we have no more of the clap-trap that the right hon. Member for Darlington and the hon. Member for South Thanet echoed from the Dispatch Box during the last Parliament.
	In one respect, the OFT report represents a missed opportunity. Sadly, when the OFT announced its investigation, it used very narrow criteria, although the official Opposition urged the OFT to widen its scope at the time. Of course, part of the equation involves looking at how residential care is funded in this country. I do not suggest that we should consider how much residential care and social care is funded to the levels in such a report, but we should consider the mechanics because there is a serious problem.
	The problem is twofold. First, throughout the country social service departments use, to put it crudely, their bulk purchasing power to tell care homes what price they are prepared to pay per week, per client, and they do so on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. One often finds—particularly with small, family-run homes or medium-sized homes—that what is offered is, at best, equivalent to the actual cost of the care and, at worst, below the actual cost of the care. That does nothing to encourage and enhance the quality of care for those residents. It is wrong that local authorities can adopt that attitude because I should have thought that, among other things, it would be anti-competitive.
	We know that the Competition Appeal Tribunal in Belfast looked into this issue two years ago, and it believed that such practices were anti-competitive. Unfortunately, I am not a lawyer, so I do not understand how English Health Ministers can tell me that the decision of the Belfast Competition Appeal Tribunal has no relevance and cannot be translated to mainland England. Something must be done to look into the matter because it is apparently a clear case of anti-competitive practice.
	The other problem, which causes considerable confusion and misunderstanding, and that I cannot fathom properly, is that in those areas where social services departments own their own homes, they are more than happy to pay themselves infinitely more money per week, per client than they will pay the private provider to care for a client. The situation in the city of Birmingham is a classic case in the extreme. The latest figures that I have, which relate to last year, show that Birmingham social services department was prepared to pay its own residential care homes £775 per resident, per week, but that it was prepared to pay the independent residential care homes in Birmingham only £310 per week, per resident.
	Those figures are extreme, but they are reflected throughout the country, although the gap elsewhere is not so great. However, in Birmingham there is now the wholesale closure of care homes that just cannot continue to provide care at the prices that they are forced to take—or leave, which means closure—because of the decision of Birmingham city council's social services department. That seems odd. There is a shortage of beds in the city in any case, but it has been grossly exacerbated in the past four years because of that policy. How is it that a local authority can find the money to pay its own homes so much, yet claim poverty and refuse to pay more to other care homes? That leads to an even more disturbing knock-on effect, which was highlighted in an editorial in The Times.

Simon Burns: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue and I am pleased to see so many of my new hon. Friends in the Chamber because they have just seen a classic example of how perspicacious my hon. Friend is. He made the very point that I was about to raise from The Times editorial.
	As my hon. Friend has rightly drawn to my attention, the practice has another knock-on effect, which is, as The Times editorial of last Thursday so succinctly said,
	"the concern that the fees of people who pay for their own care"—
	in residential homes—
	"may be rising to make up a shortfall left by local authorities not paying enough to cover the costs of the residents whom they are supposed to support."
	If the state, through social services departments, is not prepared to pay an acceptable level of fee per person, it is morally wrong that the fallback position, to stop the homes going out of business, is that people with assets of more than £20,000 have to pay their own fees and that their assets are thus diminishing every year. There is a double whammy, adding insult to injury, as they have to subsidise the local authority-paid clients because the local authority will not pay a realistic fee. That is morally wrong. That situation must be looked into and addressed, because it should not and must not continue.
	It is for those reasons that I welcome the opportunity to raise these issues. I hope that, through the Minister, my concerns and those of my hon. Friends can be translated to the relevant Minister at the Department of Health, so that we can have intelligent investigation and discussion of the issues rather than a knee-jerk reaction. For eight long years we have found that whenever anything goes wrong, whenever there is a problem, it is everybody's fault except that of the Ministers on the Treasury Bench.

Jeremy Browne: I am grateful for the opportunity to make my first speech in this Parliament. I congratulate other hon. Members on their maiden speeches, which were highly entertaining in many cases, earlier in the debate.
	I start by paying tribute to my predecessor, Adrian Flook, the previous Conservative Member for Taunton, who was a diligent and hard-working Member of the House during the last Parliament. His predecessor, Jackie Ballard, was the first woman to represent Taunton and the first Liberal Democrat this side of the second world war. Her predecessor was another Conservative, David Nicholson. I am in fact the fourth person to represent Taunton in the last four Parliaments and I think that I am the representative of the only constituency where the incumbent has lost at each of the past three general elections, so I hope that there will be widespread support in the House—although I do not necessarily expect to find it—for my campaign to bring some much-needed electoral and representative stability to the people of the Taunton constituency in the years to come.
	Taunton is a somewhat misleadingly named constituency; it is much wider than the county town itself. The constituency stretches to the Somerset levels to the east; to Exmoor in the west, where there is some of the most beautiful countryside in Britain, including Dulverton and the surrounding villages; to the Blackdown hills in the south, which afford a magnificent view down to Taunton and beyond; and to the Quantock hills in the north. It includes some beautiful and picturesque villages with evocative names, such as Lydeard St. Lawrence, Combe Florey, Langford Budville and Sampford Arundel.
	The constituency is diverse. The town of Taunton is big enough to have some urban characteristics, while at the other end of the scale there are remote, rural communities which see the affairs of the nation somewhat differently from people in towns and certainly the bigger cities. Also in the constituency is Wellington, a proud and independent-minded town, which is overlooked by the famous Wellington monument. Our hope and expectation is that Wellington will become the venue for the new Taunton Deane livestock market at Chelston on the edge of the town and that that will bring great benefits not only to the agricultural community in my area but to Wellington itself.
	Taunton is the county town, the business and administrative centre of Somerset and the home of the county council. I have the good fortune to live right in the middle of Taunton, little more than a muscular, Bothamesque six from the county cricket ground. Next month Somerset will be the host for our Australian visitors for a one-day match at the ground, and I hope that I do not sound too churlish a host when I say that I confidently expect Somerset to inflict on our guests a humbling experience that will set the tone for the remainder of the summer.
	Taunton is also the home of several important public, civic organisations, one of which is the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office, which maps the seas and oceans of the world on behalf of the Government, commercial organisations and friendly Governments with whom we want to share such information. It is a sign of Britain's historical role and also of our current global ambitions that the UK is one of only three or four countries that aspire to that task on a global scale.
	Musgrove Park hospital in Taunton serves a community that is wider than the constituency itself, including many people in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath). There are two pressing projects at the hospital that I hope will be completed during this Parliament, if not sooner. The first is the building of a multi-storey car park to ease chronic congestion and parking problems at the hospital. The second, more important, project is the completion of a cancer centre. At present, people in the Taunton constituency who suffer from cancer often have to travel, with their families, to Bristol for treatment, a round trip of about 100 miles at a time of difficulty and stress. It is immensely important that the new cancer centre at Musgrove Park is completed. It will make a large difference to the people I represent.
	I have a personal ambition: to ensure that school standards in Somerset remain high and rise further. I have the great honour and privilege to be a governor at Ladymead community school in north Taunton. Other contributions to the debate have touched on the fact that Somerset currently receives less per pupil than the national average, yet we manage to achieve in our schools better results than the national average. I hope that we can continue to raise standards, because opportunity, ambition and aspiration are important qualities in an advanced and advancing society. I want to bring those attributes to children in Somerset and beyond.
	I finish by making a slightly wider point about the Government's legislative agenda. I share the view expressed earlier that antisocial behaviour is a very important problem; it is the most commonly raised issue with me when I knock on people's doors. I welcome the fact that the Government have placed such emphasis on it and on what they call the "respect agenda" in the Queen's Speech and their programme for the Parliament as a whole. Politicians can make a number of differences in this regard. I have been very impressed, for example, by the role of the community support officers with whom I have been out on patrol in Taunton, Wellington and some of the surrounding rural areas. As long as they are not a substitute for the regular police but are an additional resource for the regular police, I would like to see their numbers expanded further to cover the other communities in my area where they do not currently serve.
	A matter that is closer to home rather than having a wider application is the consideration that I would like to be given to Somerset having its own police force. At the moment, we have a very artificial construct whereby Somerset is in the same police area as Bristol, which has very different policing requirements—the policing requirements of a large city whereas Somerset is a predominantly rural county. There is a widespread feeling particularly in west Somerset that the crime requirements in Bristol and the need to reduce crime on behalf of Avon and Somerset police mean that priority is not always given to Somerset and west Somerset. In time, I would like the Government to consider that issue as well.
	There are a number of issues associated with crime and antisocial behaviour that it is not possible for politicians to tackle directly through legislation. We cannot pass laws here automatically making people good mannered and considerate, but we can try to address the underlying causes of crime and antisocial behaviour. Yes that is about education, good parenting and what the Government call "respect" and I may call "civic mindedness", but it is ultimately about making sure that people in Taunton and the country as a whole not only enjoy a good standing of living but a good quality of life. That may be something that we can all aspire to achieve and advance in our time in Parliament. That goes very much for me.
	I am grateful to hon. Members on all sides for their indulgence over the past 10 minutes, and I have enjoyed making a contribution in this debate. I hope to make and enjoy making many more speeches in my time in Parliament.

Mark Pritchard: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak so early. I appreciate that.
	I rise with some fear and trepidation not only because the House is full of hon. Friends and Members who have served it with distinction and who are renowned for their thoughtful and eloquent speeches, but because so many new Members—namely, on this side, my hon. Friends the Members for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) and for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps)—have made excellent speeches. I also include the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil), who is no longer in his place. I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the western isles, to Scotland and to Hansard for my pronunciation of his constituency. I also include the new Member for Taunton (Jeremy Browne).
	I pay tribute to the eight years of public service that my predecessor gave to The Wrekin constituency. His philosophy on life and politics remain different from my own, and his approach to matters of public policy and personalities is also somewhat different. However, I recognise that he committed eight years of his life to public service in this place and, for that indisputable fact, I pay him tribute here today.
	Public service remains a great privilege and honour, and I am grateful to my constituents in The Wrekin for allowing me to serve them in this place. Indeed, I am the first Conservative MP to be elected for The Wrekin since the major boundary changes of 1997. With the attractive market towns of Wellington, Newport and Shifnal, with the pretty villages of Albrighton, High Ercall, Sheriffhales and Tibberton and with the dominating geological feature of The Wrekin itself—it is an area of outstanding natural beauty that towers 400 m over the rest of Shropshire—The Wrekin is rural England at its very best.
	Those Members who have visited my constituency know that, in geographic terms, it is mostly rural. That means that for many of the people whom I represent the success of the rural sector and Shropshire's rural way of life is of paramount importance if The Wrekin is to continue to thrive not just in terms of rising living standards, but culturally and in self-confidence. That is why I hope that the Government might recognise that the success of urban England is inextricably linked with the success of rural England. Yes they are different, but they should be treated equally.
	Manufacturing also remains a key sector, and I hope that the Government will do more to ensure no further demise in the UK manufacturing sector, not least in the defence and technology manufacturing areas of the country and, indeed, in The Wrekin. In my area, that sector provides employment to hundreds of my constituents, which, in turn, creates demand and spend for The Wrekin's market towns.
	The defence sector is a key employer in The Wrekin, with RAF Cosford being one of the largest operational RAF stations in the world. It also encompasses the defence college of aeronautical engineering, and there is also the defence repair, supply, logistics and procurement facility at Donington, with its numerous local suppliers of support services. That means that forthcoming decisions by Ministers over matters relating to defence spending and rationalisation—not least, the Government's review of the Army's supply and logistics capabilities—will be of great interest indeed. The Wrekin has a proud history of working alongside the Ministry of Defence and Her Majesty's armed forces, and long may that continue. This country faces many challenges, not only in domestic policy but in international affairs. Therefore, my responsibility as a new Member, despite my fresher status, is both a sombre and challenging one.
	Britain today, as many Members have mentioned, is a world in which authority is undermined every hour of every day. It is as if "authority" is an unattractive word—a word that dare not mention its name. We have seen authority taken away from parents, from teachers, from police officers and, perhaps as concerning, taken away from the very institution of collective government and the role of this Parliament in bringing the Executive to account. That is why I welcome Mr. Speaker's comments on the first day of this Parliament, and dare I be as bold to paraphrase them? This House is justified in its expectation that key Government announcements should be made to Parliament first.
	The domestic challenges that face us, many of which require urgent attention, might lend themselves to hasty legislation and quick law, but decisions made in haste do not usually stand the test of time. On important issues such as health and welfare reform and pensions reform, it is time, valuable time, that many of my constituents do not have should the Government fail to get things right. That is why I have concerns about some of the Government's proposed Bills, as set out in the Gracious Speech. However, I defer to convention, and hope to raise these concerns on another occasion. Suffice it to say that the Government's "apologesis" of limited funding inputs from past Conservative Administrations cannot continue as a credible rebuttal given that they have been in power for eight years.
	I also hope that, in seeking to curb incitement to religious hatred, the Government will not forget to balance this worthy aspiration with the rights of an individual's freedom of speech, which British subjects have enjoyed for hundreds of years. In a free and fair liberal democracy such as ours, rigorous debate, challenge and scrutiny of all religions and beliefs, and indeed the right of people to have no belief, are surely signs of society's strength, not its weakness.
	Let us not forget that many people left these shores several hundred years ago for a place across the pond, arguably because of the Government of the day's interference with freedom of speech and religion. Indeed, some might suggest that the Government need to tread carefully with their necessary continuation of promoting equal rights so that they ensure that they do not create special rights that might serve only to produce intolerance and misunderstanding of the very sections of British society that they are rightly trying to protect. In nobly seeking inclusivity, the Government should be cautious not to create a new exclusivity. I have a large Sikh and Muslim community in my constituency, as well as a vibrant ecumenical movement among churches, and have committed myself to trying to protect any diminution of the right of freedom of speech. For the record, that includes political freedom of speech and the right unashamedly to promote the British national self-interest, however politically incorrect that might be today or in the future.
	During my time in this place—however short or long—I hope that the Government will ponder the attraction of better law, rather than more law. In so doing, I hope that they might engage the whole House, including, dare I venture, even the occasional Back Bencher from a beautiful constituency in Shropshire called The Wrekin.

Jo Swinson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech. I begin by congratulating my fellow Members who have already made their maiden speeches so well today. The first was the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil), who made an excellent contribution. Fortunately, the constituencies of those who followed him were somewhat easier to pronounce. We heard from the hon. Members for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) and for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Jeremy Browne), the hon. Members for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) and for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands), the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Fraser)—who, unusually, had the opportunity to make a second maiden speech—my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Jenny Willott), and the hon. Member for Putney (Justine Greening). I enjoyed listening to all of them.
	It is a great privilege for me to represent East Dunbartonshire, where I was raised and where I have lived for most of my life. The seat has many distinguished constituents, not least the Speaker of this very House. I am looking forward to getting to grips with my constituents' inquiries and problems. Mr. Speaker has welcomed new Members to the House, helpfully offering advice and a listening ear. I am in the fortunate position of being able to reciprocate. Whether the problem is antisocial neighbours, harassment at work or difficulty with a landlord, my door is always open.
	East Dunbartonshire stands out among constituencies for electing women in their 20s. The last young woman to represent it was Margaret Bain. Her maiden speech was described by William Hamilton, then Member of Parliament for Fife, Central, as
	"a rare treat highly charged with non-controversial subjects."—[Official Report, 6 November 1974; Vol. 880, c. 1144.]
	Perfect, I thought: no doubt it would be a helpful guide for me. Imagine my surprise when, reading the speech, I came across Mrs. Bain's call for the resignation of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths) may be pleased to learn that I plan to be less controversial today.
	The current boundaries of my constituency contain much of what was formerly Strathkelvin and Bearsden, and part of the old Clydebank and Milngavie seat. Tony Worthington, who stood down at the recent election, gave long service to the community of Milngavie. I pay particular tribute to his hard work on international development. John Lyons was also active in promoting international issues. As Member of Parliament for Strathkelvin and Bearsden, he kick-started a local campaign for East Dunbartonshire to pursue fair trade status. I know that John will be pleased that his efforts are paying off and that a steering group is working towards making East Dunbartonshire a fair trade zone by 2006.
	Both those former Labour Members should also be congratulated on their principled stance in opposing the Iraq war. The ability to put conscience and constituency views before the view of the party is valued by members of the public, even if it is less popular with the Whips.
	Having mentioned Labour and SNP former representatives of my constituency, I should point out that the Conservatives also held the seat: it was represented by Sir Michael Hirst in the 1980s. In the Scottish Parliament, the Independent Dr. Jean Turner represents Strathkelvin and Bearsden. It was about time that a Liberal Democrat was elected. I am delighted to be the first Liberal Democrat to represent East Dunbartonshire, and also the first Liberal Democrat Member in west central Scotland since Roy Jenkins represented Glasgow, Hillhead.
	East Dunbartonshire sits just to the north of Glasgow, stretching from the city boundaries to the foot of the beautiful Campsie fells. I may be accused of bias, but I believe that it is a fantastic place to live. The distinct areas that make up East Dunbartonshire retain a strong sense of community spirit. Situated just 20 minutes from the bustling cosmopolitan city centre of Glasgow and a similarly short distance from the lush beauty of Loch Lomond, it really does enjoy the best of both worlds. Hence it is a lovely place to visit, and I encourage hon. Members to do so, though perhaps not with the purpose that several right hon. Labour Members had when they visited earlier this year.
	People have been visiting for centuries. In 141 AD, the Romans arrived. They found the place so pleasing that they thought there was no need to go further north. Indeed, they built the Antonine wall through the constituency with forts in Bearsden, Cadder and Kirkintilloch. Bearsden was even treated to a Roman bathhouse.
	The retention and protection of the vibrant community spirit in East Dunbartonshire will be a high priority for me. Central to strong communities are good local services, which is why I have been particularly concerned at the recent closures of post offices in local areas such as Bearsden, Westerton and Auchinairn. In Bishopbriggs, the main post office has been under threat, although I am now optimistic that, thanks to the support of thousands of local people, the facility will be kept in the town centre. Post offices often act as hubs for the community and a trip to the post office is about so much more than just making a transaction. Such social contact forms part of the glue that binds communities together.
	Economic regeneration can also support communities. Kirkintilloch, part of which is in my constituency, is looking forward to a multi-million pound regeneration project that will deliver a state-of-the-art leisure centre by 2007, an arts and culture centre, a health centre and better access to the countryside. A new marina on the Forth and Clyde canal will help to cement Kirkintilloch's reputation as the canal capital of Scotland.
	My home town, Milngavie, attracts visitors from all over the world keen to embark on a challenging and dramatic long-distance walk. The west highland way begins in Milngavie and finishes 95 miles further on in Fort William, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr. Kennedy). I was delighted to welcome him last month to the start of the west highland way, where we spoke with one of the many active local community groups, the Bearsden and Milngavie ramblers. Next month, the west highland way is celebrating its 25th anniversary—it is almost as old as I am.
	Although I may, just, be older than the west highland way, I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) in being the youngest Member of this House. I am delighted that among the new faces in the House there are several young MPs. It is a strength that the elected Members span a spectrum of 55 years in age. A more representative House can help to make politics more relevant to the electorate that we serve.
	Many people feel disconnected from politics, and nowhere is that more apparent than among young people. Addressing that will take a bit more than baseball caps and text messages. I argue that there is not a general lack of interest in politics, but rather a lack of faith in the political process and in us politicians to address the issues that people care about. People want to know why millions are dying from treatable diseases in Africa, and they want the world to stop sleep-walking into future environmental disaster. Britain's leadership of the G8 later this year will be a key test for many people who are still prepared to give politics a chance.
	I am thrilled and honoured that the voters of East Dunbartonshire have chosen to give me a chance as their elected representative. I am to determined to represent all of my constituents tirelessly, whatever their politics and even if they do not happen to be the Speaker of this House.

Kelvin Hopkins: A fellow Scot speaks from the Back Benches.
	Other new Members made equally trenchant and interesting speeches, some laced with humour as well as intelligence. I did not agree with every point raised but, surprisingly, I agreed with quite a few, even though they were made by Opposition Members.
	I made a late entry into the Chamber this afternoon, but not just to avoid having to pronounce the name of that wonderful constituency in the west of Scotland, which I shall have to learn before too long. I was fortunate in arriving late for that reason, but my main purpose is to deliver the speech that I wanted to make in the Queen's Speech debates but was unable to do so, largely because so many fine new Members were making their maiden speeches. It was enjoyable and interesting to hear them yesterday. I want to raise some fairly serious points about the economy, so my remarks are addressed mainly to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I know that the Deputy Leader of the House is one of his close friends, so perhaps he will put in a good word for me after he has heard my speech.
	Support for the Government has rested largely on our success with the economy. We have had strong and steady growth for eight years and unemployment has fallen to astonishingly low levels. We have had buoyant house prices and rising public spending, all of which has brought dividends and contributed to two further substantial election victories. We must ensure that our economic record continues in order to win fourth and perhaps even fifth terms in office. The benign economic environment has meant that voters, particularly Labour voters, have forgiven the Government for other less popular policies. Even I have disagreed with Ministers and the Government on some issues. The Iraq war has already been mentioned, but when people came to vote, they put the pound in their pockets, their jobs, their secure homes and their schools and hospitals first in their reckoning. That is precisely what they did at the last election.
	In Luton, North, my support depends strongly on my constituents' reaction to what they experienced under the Conservative Government 12 to 14 years ago. That is because my constituency was then the epicentre of negative equity and repossessions. It was the No. 1 constituency in that respect, and my constituents have not forgotten it. That folk memory continues to this day and will serve us well in future years, though I do not want to rest only on the bad record of our Conservative predecessors. We need to be proud of the good things that we do, too.
	We must keep the economy strong. The truth is that we are now facing rather more difficult times. Forecasts have been made in the newspapers both today and yesterday of the difficult times that lie ahead unless we take appropriate action. Growth has long been driven primarily by consumer spending and economic demand. That has been based, in turn, on rising asset values. Since the collapse of the exchange rate mechanism in 1992, house prices have risen and there has been a surge in stock market values. Growth was so strong that it accommodated a substantial appreciation of sterling in the late 1990s—much to my surprise, I must say, because I had thought that such an appreciation would damage economic growth. That did not happen and we sailed through it, just as we sailed through a sharp fall in the stock market subsequently.
	Such events may have been expected to throw us off course, but the economy has continued to grow. House prices have been the basic reason for that. As they have continued to rise, so have the asset values that matter to most people—their own homes, particularly for working people. The price of their house is more significant than the state of the stock market. That is not true of other countries, but it is certainly true of Britain. House prices have now reached a point at which the ratio between earnings and house prices is twice that of 10 years ago. Such a surge cannot continue indefinitely and demand must derive from other sectors.
	The Government—the Chancellor, in particular—have done well in driving public spending ahead, especially in health and education. That has brought benefits in employment as well as economic growth. I urge the Chancellor to continue with his public spending programme to ensure that we have not only social benefits, but the economic benefits of full employment.

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman is making an important point, but I am sure that he will agree that the rate of construction of affordable housing fell dramatically after 1997. Had this country continued to build affordable housing at the pre-1997 rate, our housing stock for people who cannot afford to buy their own homes would now be several hundred thousand greater than it is present.

Andrew Love: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, as I want to sidetrack him in a slightly different direction. He suggests that we should build more council accommodation, which would require a significant increase in Government borrowing unless expenditure in other areas of the public were to be reduced. What is his assessment of the likely impact on the economy of that increase in borrowing?

Kelvin Hopkins: I do not think so, but I might have a debate with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor about it. We should perhaps have a higher level of gross borrowing. We have low levels by international standards, and provided that he borrows for investment and it is fundable—in the sense of the return on the borrowing—it would not be a problem. If one simply wanted to borrow for current spending, it might be a problem and could lead to budget deficits and even inflation. One has to keep current spending at an appropriate level. However, borrowing for investment in the long term, provided it can be funded, is not a problem. It is important to separate current spending and capital spending when it comes to borrowing limits.
	The house price surge has started to reach its limits. People are warier about borrowing against the rising value of their houses, and that is inevitable. We pull in our horns when we think that house prices might not rise much more. We say, "Well, we'll put off buying the car this year and we won't have so many meals out." We can choose not to spend, but if we all did that, we could quickly move into a recession or at least an economic slowdown. That is what we have to avoid, and we should look to the instruments of macroeconomic policy to ensure that economic demand is sustained in the long term at an appropriate level to maintain employment levels and growth. Those instruments are monetary policy, fiscal policy and the exchange rate.
	On monetary policy, the chief economist at Capital Economics said that the Bank of England will soon have to cut rates below the 2003 record low of 3.5 per cent. to ensure that monetary policy is not too tight. I was a little concerned when the Chancellor chose to reduce the target for the RPI(X) measure of inflation from 2.5 per cent. to 2 per cent. I see nothing wrong in raising that target to 2.5 per cent. again as a 0.5 per cent. inflation difference is not significant compared with the inflation rates that we have had in past. If the economy would be damaged by keeping the target at 2 per cent., but would be healthier if it were 2.5 per cent., I would choose a 2.5 per cent. target. The record of interest rates since 1997 shows that the average level of inflation—the RPI(X)—over that period is about 2.5 per cent. It is certainly nearer 2.5 per cent. than 2 per cent. We have had a strong economy in that period and there is nothing fundamentally wrong in having a slightly higher inflation target. We became terrified of inflation because of high rates, but the era of high inflation is long past. The economy is not now naturally inflation prone and we could easily adjust the tight inflation targets slightly.
	The second instrument is fiscal policy. As the economy moves into recession—if we are approaching that part of the cycle—it is natural to spend more. Indeed, one has to spend more if unemployment starts to rise and tax revenues start to fall. It is a natural tendency to spend more during that period, but I urge my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to use public spending, as we have traditionally done in the past, to ensure that the economy keeps growing and unemployment stays low. We have been petrified of public spending because it did get out of control when we had such high levels of unemployment in serious recessions. We had two such recessions during the period of Conservative Government and, inevitably, public spending got out of control. It is inevitable because the unemployed have to be looked after and tax revenues collapse. We are not in that situation now and I urge the Chancellor to use public spending wisely as a tool to ensure that we keep the economy growing.
	Finally I come to the exchange rate. Fortunately we are not in the eurozone, so we can adjust our exchange rate to meet the needs of our economy. The exchange rate is too high. The evidence for that is our structural trade deficit. If it is permanent and goes on year after year, something is wrong with the exchange rate: the price at which we sell our exports and the price we pay for our imports. We have reached the point when we should think seriously about intervening in the markets to bring down the exchange rate relative particularly to other developed nations.
	There is much talk about competitiveness. It can be affected by many factors, but above all by the exchange rate. If the exchange rate is, for example, 20 per cent. too high, clearly one is less competitive. I believe that it is too high and we should now intervene. There are techniques of intervention that could bring down the exchange rate, which were suggested by, among others, Gerald Holtham, former director of the Institute for Public Policy Research, such as intervening in the bond markets.
	Our great advantage in fiscal policy, monetary policy and the exchange rate is that we have control over our own economy. That is because we are not a member of the eurozone. The Chancellor has been wise to steer us clear of it for eight years. During the general election the Prime Minister said that he thought it unlikely that we would join during this Parliament. Even he has accepted that it is not sensible. It is certainly not possible because people will never vote for it.
	Our economy is relatively strong compared with that of Germany, which has the opposite problem. It cannot control its economy because it has no control over its macroeconomic levers. If it could disentangle itself from the euro and operate those levers, it could recover and perhaps even build a healthy economy like ours, with full employment and strong growth. Indeed, if I were a Back-Bench social democratic member of the Bundestag, I would urge the Chancellor to disentangle Germany from the euro and re-establish the deutschmark. It would be a sensible policy and can be done.
	Currencies can be separated. There is evidence for it. When the Czech Republic and Slovakia were set up as separate countries, they established separate currencies. They varied their values with each other. A closer example is the Irish punt. It used to be tied rigidly to the pound, but then it became a separate currency and now it is in the euro. There is absolutely no reason why the German economy could not disentangle itself from the euro. Understandably, there would be certain political ramifications. It would cause a few shockwaves round Europe, but the policy would be a sensible one. If Germany has a strong economy again, the whole of Europe would be stronger economically. It might even have an economy as strong as that which has been built on the good sense of our Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Greg Mulholland: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker for calling me to make my maiden speech. I pay tribute to the hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches today, all of which have been of a high quality. While I may be the last, I will try my best not to be least.
	It has been a busy week for me. As well as the sittings of Parliament, I have attended two sittings of Leeds City council. If I get confused, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and refer to you as my lord mayor, I hope that you will forgive me on this occasion.
	I am delighted to be in these new surroundings although, if I may dare say so, in some ways they compare less favourably with those of Leeds civic hall. The behaviour there is marginally better than here, from what I have seen so far; maiden speeches are always delivered to a packed Chamber; and, best of all, we always have a break for tea at about 6 pm. In addition, in the chamber in Leeds I have my own chair, in which no one else can sit, and I have access to an electronic voting system. Leeds has all the mod cons but, having experienced voting in this place for the first time yesterday, I am sure that the system here is at least more fun and certainly looks better on television.
	If I may, let me take you back, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to my first visit to the House, back in 1987, as an idealistic A-level politics student. I vividly remember the huge excitement when the then Prime Minister swooshed in, followed by the Ministers and various MPs whom we recognised, and of course we were captivated for the 20 minutes of Prime Minister's Question Time. However, not knowing the procedure in those days—I confess that I still do not—we were very surprised when the Prime Minister and all the Ministers swooshed out again after 20 minutes, and we then had to sit through about an hour and a half of a forestry debate. An hour of a forestry debate may not have been enough to deter me from wanting to take my place in the House, but I have to say that none of my colleagues who were with me that day has shown any interest. All I can say is that if my party leader comes to me, asking me whether I wish to take up a spokespersonship on forestry matters, he might be surprised by the vociferousness of my refusal.
	Luckily, in my seat of Leeds, North-West we do not have much in the way of forestry, but please do not be mistaken, as many people are, into assuming that it is therefore an urban seat. In fact, I am very proud to represent an extraordinarily diverse seat that consists of urban and suburban communities, as well as large amounts of farmland and beautiful countryside, which make up more than half of the constituency.
	In Leeds, North-West we have inner-city areas, suburbs, villages and farms, and we have the delightful mediaeval market town of Otley, above which is the very fine hill of Otley Chevin, said to offer the finest view in Leeds. I was lucky enough to spend the new year's eve moment of this year on that spot, wondering what might happen to me this year, so obviously my dreams have been realised.
	In Leeds, North-West we have a rather peculiar boast: we have one international airport and only half a railway station. That is because only half of Burley Park railway station lies in the constituency. Public transport is an issue, but not the railways; I will talk about that later. I represent Headingley ward both as a Member and as a councillor, and it is home to Headingley stadium. In that context, I must pay tribute to the Leeds Rhinos rugby league team, which in the past year was crowned as super league champions, winning the grand final and then going on to win the world club challenge. In the other code, we are very proud to have seen Leeds Tykes lift the Powergen trophy against Bath. It certainly has been a significant year of celebration for many of us in Leeds. All I can say is that perhaps I can be a little bit grateful that, unlike in the 1997 election, the mascot of Leeds Rhinos, Ronnie the Rhino, chose not to stand this time.
	Unlike many of the big cities such as Manchester, Birmingham or Liverpool, we do not use the name of an area for Leeds, North-West because there is no area that could claim to be the notable area of my seat. Indeed, the local Conservative association still has not worked out that the seat is called Leeds, North-West, and its members refer to themselves as North West Leeds Conservatives. But that is something of a faux pas, and one piece of advice I would give hon. Members today is that if they are sending a letter to anyone in Otley, the address is Otley, West Yorkshire—not Otley, Leeds, West Yorkshire.
	In such a diverse seat there is really only one thing that unites it. People might say that there are two now that there is a Liberal Democrat MP, but what unites it is the A660, the trunk road that runs from south to north. It is one of the top 10 congested roads in the country and a problem for all of us who try to use or avoid it. That is why the need for the Leeds supertram system is so very pressing. At present nothing is being done to address the ever-worsening problems of congestion, because we are still waiting for a decision from the Secretary of State for Transport. I must use this opportunity to urge that he makes a decision as soon as possible, and I hope sincerely that it will be a positive one.
	The last Liberal MP to represent part of Leeds, North-West was David Austick, who won the Ripon by-election back in 1973. I pay tribute to David, who has since passed away. He was an honorary alderman of the city of Leeds and is still held in very high esteem. He did, however, only hold his seat until February 1974, so I am certainly confident that I can be the MP for the constituency longer than he was.
	I must, of course, pay warm tribute to my predecessor, Harold Best. Mr. Best announced that it was his intention to retire at the general election some years ago—indeed, before I was selected to stand for election to the seat—and I would not have wanted to stand against Mr. Best, for he was an MP who had the courage to stand up for his principles and, indeed, to stand up against his Government on many occasions.
	I have heard it said that, when Harold Best was first elected, his name featured on a list of newly elected MPs suspected of being possibly troublesome that was held at Labour headquarters at Millbank. I wonder whether I am on a similar list, and all I can say is that, if not, I will do all that I can to rectify that. Indeed, Harold obliged his reputation by waiting only until December 1997 before rebelling for the first time—in that case, against the lone parent benefit cuts.
	Harold worked hard locally and campaigned on many of the same issues as my council colleagues in Leeds, North-West and I have done. In Parliament, he voted in the Lobby with my colleagues on several occasions. So it would indeed have seemed strange to oppose someone who consistently opposed the very things that I have been railing against: the great battles of the last Parliament—the war in Iraq and university top-up fees—and, of course, the great battle of this one, identity cards. I pledge to my constituents that I will continue those fights with vigour.
	Harold Best's reputation was earned not in the House, but as a hard-working local MP, and I intend to emulate him in that and do my very best to represent the people of Leeds, North-West. Mr. Best did not lose the election in Leeds, North-West, and his reputation remains intact—a proud and distinguished one that I am honoured to follow.
	Before I conclude, I wish to mention briefly a couple issues that I have been charged by my constituents to bring to the House. There has been much talk in the Queen's Speech debate about the economy, but one thing that is abundantly clear in my constituency is that, although the economy is performing well generally, the prosperity that it generates is not being shared adequately or equitably.
	First, for older people, we still have a pensions system that leaves huge numbers of the poorest pensioners without the money that they need to get an income that simply lifts them to the breadline. Free personal care is still not regarded as a right, despite the finding of the royal commission.
	Of course, at the younger end of the spectrum, many sixth-formers in my constituency are being put off going to university through the fear of the huge debts that the funding system now inevitably involves. We have something like 20,000 students in Leeds, North-West. I have a duty to continue to criticise the decisions that have seen the Government pull up the ladder of opportunity that they themselves were privileged to use without being saddled with a huge burden of debt.
	Although there are other local issues that I want to raise, I must mention my commitment to the cause of the global community and global justice. With my role as a campaigner for the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development and the wonderful umbrella organisation, TIDAL, which stands for Trade, Injustice and Debt Action Leeds, together in 2004, we were proud to make Leeds the biggest fair-trade city in this country. Indeed, I felt that I had to mention my commitment to international development, and I hope that the House and the Government continue to put that issue high on the agenda and to support the Make Poverty History campaign, particularly with the G8 summit coming up.
	I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech today. The idealistic young man who came here in 1987 has indeed now entered the House as a Member of Parliament, and I hope that I have not lost the idealistic zeal that encouraged me to want to enter the House and play a part in its business. I pledge, both to my constituents in Leeds, North-West and to all hon. Members, that I will play my full part in being the Member of Parliament for Leeds, North-West both in my constituency and here in the House.

Patrick Hall: It would be difficult for a centrally determined level of business rates to take account of the varying conditions throughout the country with which locally elected councils deal. If we want councils to play a strong role in our civic society, there must be some scope for variation because they otherwise lack the power to do what we want them to. I am not in favour of a nationally applied rate because it leads to the situation in which we demonstrably find ourselves, with the burden unfairly carried.
	Re-localising the business rate would not be an automatic solution to the problems of the council tax. There would have to be understanding and support from the business community. I also think that a measure of protection would be needed because although residents have a vote, businesses do not, so they could reasonably argue that such protection would be needed because there would be no immediate electoral kick-back from a council's decisions to increase the local business rate, as there would be from a council tax increase. We would certainly need to retain a national equalisation mechanism to redistribute business rate yields because they might be high for some councils and low for others. None the less, on balance there is much to commend in the re-localisation of the business rate.
	If property tax is to remain as the source—or indeed a source—of locally raised revenue, which is likely even if we consider the possibility of adding a local sales tax or indeed a local income tax to the armoury as a result of the Lyons review, it is crucial that it is based on accurate information about the value of property. Such information must then be fed into a robust system that can be regularly updated so that revaluation exercises are sensible and effective. The Government have made it clear that the revaluation exercise for England that is about to begin will be revenue-neutral. The value of the council tax bands will be uprated to reflect house price inflation, but that should result in the overwhelming majority of properties remaining in the same band. However, achieving that will pose difficulties due to not only strong regional variations in house prices, but large variations within regions.
	I understand why people in England express fears about the possible effects of revaluation because the experience in Wales was that 40 per cent. of properties ended up at least one band higher. We must make it clear that revaluation is not about raising revenue, learn from what happened in Wales and approach the process in a more measured way than was the case there. We have time to get the system right before the new bills hit the doormats in April 2007. I am delighted that the Lyons review is on the case and that it will advise Ministers on this crucial matter.
	I ask the Government to be open-minded about options for funding local council services. I hope that they will be prepared to consider changing the number of bands and the possibility of introducing regional variations for both the number of bands and the payment proportions among them. Although it will be controversial, I hope that the Government will be open minded about the re-localisation of the business rate, for the reasons that I mentioned. We also need to ensure that we learn from the Welsh experience and deliver an English revaluation that is revenue-neutral.
	Finally, we all need to be clear about the overall purpose of the reform of local council funding. It should be about underpinning and strengthening local government to create a framework in which local government and local democracy flourish and should make a difference to our towns and communities throughout the land. Councillors should be able to respond to the wishes of residents and to have freedoms and responsibilities. That will make the job of being a councillor worth while and, therefore, more likely to attract new people who want to serve their communities in that way, as well as perhaps achieving a higher turnout at local elections. To achieve all that, the way in which councils are funded must be fair, easily understood and easy to collect.
	Surely, if we are to retain a property tax, the aim should be that householders with comparable incomes pay roughly the same local council tax if they live in broadly similar house types anywhere in the country, and that there should be a reasonable span of bands nearly everywhere, with band A, for example, applying to houses that are cheap by local rather than national standards. If we do not do that, we will end up keeping and reinforcing the current situation in which 60, 70 or 80-plus per cent. of properties in many northern towns and cities are in band A.
	Those are important issues for the Government and Parliament. They are certainly important to my constituents, whose message to me is clear: the current situation cannot be sustained and council tax must be reformed.

David Amess: Before the House adjourns for the Whitsun recess, I wish to raise a number of points. First, however, I want to deal with the maiden speeches.
	You and I made our maiden speeches in the same year, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I sat two Benches back from the Dispatch Box, on the Government side of the House. On that occasion, it was not possible to find a place to sit, whereas nowadays it is hard to find a Member of Parliament who is available to sit on the green Benches. I also note that the usual courtesies in debates no longer seem to be entirely observed, which is disappointing. No doubt that has all happened via the Modernisation Committee and perhaps I need to understand it a bit more. The best way to deal with that would be to put it on the agenda of the next meeting of the Chairmen's Panel.
	The first maiden speech today was by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil)—I shall not pretend to pronounce his constituency correctly. When he began speaking, I did not understand anything he said and thought that it was the usual speech by a colleague. It eventually dawned on me that he was not speaking in English. When he reverted to English and I could understand him, I thought that he made a splendid speech. I am sure that the House looks forward to his contributions.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker) also made a splendid speech. He has a loud voice, and my hon. Friends will be in no doubt as to how he stands on things. I am delighted that he paid such a warm and generous tribute to our former colleague, Dame Marion Roe. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps) made a remarkable speech without a piece of paper in his hands. I was impressed by his command of the constituency that he represents. He paid a generous and warm tribute to Melanie Johnson, his predecessor, who used to sit on the Labour Benches.
	We then heard a speech from the hon. Member for Taunton (Jeremy Browne), who again spoke with no notes, although technically he had a piece of paper in his hand. He made a splendid tour of his constituency. It was a shock to most of us when he said that there had been four different Members of Parliament in four elections, but we will not dwell on that.
	My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) spoke about the normal courtesies of the House, and I very much agreed with what he said about the supremacy of Parliament. I look forward to his contribution on that subject in the years to come. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands) is someone I know well: he happens to be a member of the same dining club as myself, the 1912 club, and he has earned his spurs in winning a place in this House. He will prove to be a splendid MP.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Fraser) is a retread—we were together in one Parliament. As ever, he spoke splendidly. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) that there is nothing wrong with being a retread. I go for economy in motoring and most of my tyres are also retreads.
	The hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Jenny Willott) made a splendid speech. Inadvertently, I have become a regular visitor to Cardiff because the various football teams with which I am associated keep turning up at the millennium stadium. I shall refer later to Saturday's match, but so far, we have had no success. Having listened to the hon. Lady's speech, perhaps we will be successful on Saturday.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) made a stunning speech. When we saw her face on the television on election night, Conservative Members were all greatly cheered up. I noted that she said that she sings carols, and there is an effective group in the House of Commons for her to join. I am sure that, in every sense, she will make a great contribution to the affairs of the House.
	The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) made a splendid speech and paid a warm tribute to her colleagues. The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland) comes to this House with great experience—no one could accuse him of taking a short cut to the House of Commons—and we look forward to hearing from him in the years ahead.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker, what a joy it is for you and I to listen to new voices. It is a privilege to listen to maiden speeches, as some of us get fed up listening to the same voices. I get particularly fed up listening to my own voice and if my family were to take a vote, they would very much agree.
	Traditionally, these debates are about local matters. I am puzzled that, having fought a general election campaign, so few hon. Members are here to raise constituency points. I should have thought that now was the time to deliver on the promises made on the doorstep. I intend to do as is traditional and raise constituency points.
	I welcome the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), to his new position. He and I know one another very well: he once borrowed my eldest daughter to introduce her to the leader of his party at the Brit awards, but I shall not hold that against him. He also led her astray by getting her an autograph from the leader of his party, but I shall not hold that against him either.
	When the Minister really gets into his job, he will be briefed by his officials that I have continually raised the case of Majid Narwaz. He is one of four British citizens detained—or should I say "banged up"?—in prison in Cairo. The other Members of Parliament who have constituents there are my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), and the hon. Members for East Ham (Mr. Timms) and for West Ham (Lyn Brown). I must tell the Minister, although this is not directed towards him personally, that my patience on this issue has now run out.
	My constituent has now been in prison in Cairo for three and a half years, so he has already done three and a half years of a five-year sentence. The members of the Foreign Office team who have been dealing with this case are very courteous and, no doubt, when the Minister responds he will reassure the House that Ministers have done everything that they possibly can on the issue. Well, I am no longer convinced that they have been terribly effective. Considering the relationship between the Labour leader and President Mubarak, I am certain that, with a bit more tenacity, we could get some real movement on the issue of these four detainees.
	When I went to visit my constituent in prison in Cairo, I found the conditions grim, to say the least. Some of my colleagues would doubtless say that that is as it should be, but I believe that the detainees are not guilty of the crimes of which they are accused and that there has been a great miscarriage of justice. Majid Narwaz is a young man, and his mother came to see me at my surgery on Friday. She advised me that inmates from the prison's criminal wing—not the four British detainees—had smuggled in a mobile telephone and that, as a result, all the inmates had been punished. They were not allowed out of their cells to exercise, and food from their families was not allowed into the prison. The situation is very grim indeed. My constituent is allowed out of his cell for only two hours.
	The detainees' families would very much welcome a further meeting with the Foreign Secretary to discuss their welfare, and I urge the Minister and his ministerial colleagues to make representations to the Egyptian Government, so that Majid and the other detainees can return to the UK as soon as possible. This morning, I was delighted to receive a letter from the Egyptian ambassador. I shall not read it all out to the House because I understand that a number of my hon. Friends have received similar letters. The ambassador congratulates me on being re-elected, then goes on to say:
	"While I am looking forward to meeting with you soon, I would like to assure you of my readiness to cooperate fully with your goodself in order to enhance further the already excellent existing bilateral relations between our two countries."
	Marvellous! We are going to get some action on this issue, and the Minister is obviously pushing at an open door.
	The next issue that I wish to raise is that of law and enforcement. So many of my colleagues are parroting the chorus that we need 5,000 more police officers. However, it will do no earthly good to have even one extra police officer patrolling our streets unless they know what they are doing. It is ridiculous for people to call for more and more police officers—I know some of my colleagues will grimace: fancy a Conservative Member of Parliament saying that!—when what is needed is a well-managed police force. I am less than reassured that that is the case at the moment. We also want a properly trained police force.
	A number of my friends and relatives joined the police, although some of them have left the force. When I learn at first hand about what is happening in the police force, I am very concerned because it seems that whenever an Opposition Member makes a criticism, the fault is always thought to lie with the last Conservative Government in the previous century. However, we have lost too many experienced police officers, who for all sorts of reasons have taken early retirement. That has happened not just in the police service but in the teaching profession and among health professionals. We have lost a huge number of experienced policewomen and policemen, and we are now paying the price for losing all that experience. I suggest to the Minister and to my colleagues that we need more police officers, but we also need common sense. Our police officers should be properly trained.

Bob Spink: Stunning, staggering and spectacular—that is how local papers will report the 11 maiden speeches that the House has been blessed with today. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) has trawled through them each in turn, I will not do so. Stunning, staggering and spectacular was how my local paper described my election result on 5 May. I pay tribute to my four opponents in that election, who are all excellent people, to Ian Yeomans, who organised the election, and to the general election team, which delivered such a cracking result.
	I have known defeat as well as victory, so I hope that the House will allow me to send our best wishes to each of our colleagues, from whatever party, who stood and lost in the election on 5 May. We wish them well in whatever they choose to do in the future. Some of them may, like me and my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Fraser), return to the House eventually and serve their constituents well, as they did in the past. However, we must wish them well. Like me, they were removed by a combination of factors. They may have been voted out by the sound hand of local democracy—people power. It may have been because of their own failures. That was certainly what happened in my case. I failed in certain ways, but I hope that I have learned from that defeat and come back as a stronger and better MP to serve my constituents better. However, the main factor that swept them away was macroeconomic trends, which none of us, as individuals, has control over.
	I will certainly not be complacent in my constituency after my victory. I will redouble my efforts and work for our third road and improved infrastructure across the constituency, including at Saddlers Farm and Hadleigh. I will fight for a return to the old, traditional and comfortable Hadleigh village centre atmosphere—we must return that vibrant village atmosphere to that part of my constituency. I will fight to stop the ruin of our borough by overdevelopment. I will also fight to stop the rot of post office closures and for a new post office to be opened for the Canvey Island shopping centre, where one was closed. Thankfully, the Post Office has agreed to try to find a new location for that post office, and that cannot come soon enough.
	I will be fighting to safeguard the interests of our special educational needs children and our special schools, particularly Cedar Hall moderate learning difficulty special school in Thundersley. It is a wonderful school that needs to be protected and to have a sound intake of pupils who can benefit from the services that it offers, particularly at primary stage, rather than only at secondary stage, when it is often too late to build the foundations that special pupils need. Early intervention is good and more cost-effective. When parents want to choose special schools, we should make them available.
	I welcome the charming and appropriate clock that was recently erected in my constituency by Councillor Wendy Goodwin in memory of Bernard Braine, who was like a father to me. He was my predecessor and represented Castle Point for about 40 years. Imagine following a man who was here for 42 years; it was a difficult job. He was a wonderful, courteous constituency MP—the epitome of what a constituency MP should be. He ended up as the Father of the House, and those Members who knew him will, I am sure, remember him fondly. He was a true gentleman of the old school.
	Bernard would have agreed with me that we should formally celebrate our patron saint, St. George. I shall be working with like-minded colleagues—I see some in their places today—to bring that about.
	Bernard would also have supported the campaign for fair funding for hospices, which has been taken up by local newspapers. I congratulate them on that and I also congratulate hospice staff, carers, volunteers and fund raisers on their excellent contributions to keeping our hospices going throughout the country. I also want to mention the Hadleigh, Canvey Island and Benfleet Conservative clubs, which do so much to raise money for all charities, but particularly for the Little Haven hospice in my constituency. I pay tribute to all the good people who are involved in that.
	About 20 per cent. of adult hospice funding and about 5 per cent. of children's hospice funding comes from the public purse, but less than 2 per cent. of public funds went to the Little Haven hospice last year, which is simply not good enough. I will keep on the backs of the Government to tackle that problem. They cannot pass it down by saying that it is not their business, but only that of the primary care trusts. The Government must take action and I shall hound them at every opportunity on the Floor of the House and in Westminster Hall to force a proper resolution of the problem. The Conservative party believes in 40 per cent. funding both for children's and adult hospices, and I hope that we shall repeat that winning policy in our next manifesto. We are going to win the next election, building on the fantastic foundation that we have now, so I hope that it comes sooner rather than later.
	Lo and behold, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I received a letter this week from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, which provides a sign of hope. It states:
	"I know you are a keen champion of the work of hospices, both in your constituency and nationally, and I applaud the initiative you took in bringing the funding difficulties faced by hospices to debate in the House last autumn . . . Your speech in the House referred to 'Treasury Rules'. I believe you were referring to Treasury guidance on the question of Full Cost Recovery for voluntary and community sector (VCS) organisations . . . My officials are currently working with the Department of Health who, in turn, meet regularly with representatives from the hospice sector in order to clarify what the above means for hospices, with two aims. Firstly, to arrive at a common understanding of how Government should fund those crucial services which hospices deliver. And secondly, to improve individual funding relationships between PCTs and hospices, which is what we would all like to see."
	I look forward to the officials writing to me again in greater detail, as promised, to advise me of what conclusion is reached. It certainly seems like light at the end of the tunnel for hospice funding and it will be welcomed by the hospice movement. I hope that the Chief Secretary will not mind me putting that on the record.
	During the election, two local issues were often raised. One was overdevelopment, which I shall not touch on now, and the other was law and order. Let me make it clear that Castle Point is a safe constituency with low levels of crime. Indeed, the only significant crime is the street crime of kids. It is annoying and it increases the fear of crime among residents. Let me also make it clear that we generally have great kids in Castle Point. There are wonderful kids who do much to help the community—kids that we can all be proud of—but they are spoiled by just a few yobs. We must do all that we can to tackle the behaviour of those yobs, but Labour's hands-off, politically correct attitude towards crime and punishment and the failure of tough parental control have created a yob culture in my constituency. I do not want to talk only about the negative side today. I shall take a positive approach instead, as we need that as much as we need tough deterrents. We must give people pathways away from crime and especially from crime driven by addiction to drugs.
	I see that the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) is in his place, as always. He is an assiduous Member of Parliament and he has always emphasised the need to tackle the drug culture by providing rehabilitation places. Although he sits on the Labour Benches, I am pleased to see him. He has fought for that cause consistently for many years, and I congratulate him on his work.
	Last weekend, I attended Thundersley Congregational church, where Teen Challenge UK was making a presentation entitled "The Evidence". I wanted to learn from people who do not sit down and grumble about the drugs problem but get up off their backsides and do something about it. I also wanted to learn from people who had left crime and drugs behind so that they could rebuild their lives.
	The Government must find better ways to convert people—and some of them really are the scum of our streets—who, driven by addiction, prey off innocent people and businesses. Such people need to be helped to become decent, tax-paying citizens who give something back to society. We all accept that the Government must find better ways to rescue these addicts, whose every hour of every day is focused on finding money, usually by nefarious means, to get their next hit. However, the solutions will be complex: what works for one person may not work for another. Therefore, we need a range of solutions, in a range of areas.
	Prison is often part of the problem, rather than the solution, for drug-driven crime, although I accept that it is a very good form of prevention, as it takes users off the street. Teen Challenge UK rescues and redeems the saddest cases, the people who are at the bottom with little hope. It does a fantastic job and succeeds where other remedies have failed. It is less expensive than Home Office rehabilitation residential places. In fact, it raises one third of its money from voluntary contributions, often from Christian organisations, and that is to be welcomed.
	Teen Challenge UK has a success rate of 76 per cent. That is remarkable enough in itself, but I am not talking only about people getting off drugs and crime. The organisation's success lies in the fact that it gets people back to work. That means that they pay tax and reconnect with their families—a very important element—and that they contribute again to society.
	Teen Challenge UK has 80 of the worst addiction-driven criminals waiting for a bed place, and that is just in its centre for men in south Wales. The people who are waiting for those places are sad cases. They are gagging for a chance to get their lives and families back, and simply to be decent again. Some of the men are self-harming and at the very end of their tether. They know that they will commit several crimes every day, which brings innocent people into the equation.
	Why on earth, therefore, has Teen Challenge UK's priming funding of £700,000 been withdrawn? Fact is sometimes stranger than fiction, and that is the case here. The organisation's grant was removed essentially because it has Christian roots and is run by Christians. Teen Challenge UK is in no way discriminatory in its work: most of its clients are not Christians and will not become Christians as a result of getting off drugs and out of crime.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker, are you thinking what we are thinking? I think that you probably are. It was the Welsh Assembly that decided to remove the grant, and I think that it is bonkers for doing so. I do not know whether "bonkers" constitutes unparliamentary language, but I should be happy to withdraw it and replace it with "insane" or "mad". I would even go so far as to say what all of us think—that this is an example of political correctness gone mad. The politically correct approach has been driven to an absurd extreme, to the extent that what is being done is evil in itself. No right-minded person would think it sensible to take away that funding and prevent that very good and cost-effective attempt to address that complicated and difficult problem.
	The grant was withdrawn by the Welsh Assembly, on which Labour and the Liberal Democrats must have some influence. The media certainly has some influence and I hope that the matter will be taken up. Teen Challenge UK went to judicial review of the decision and the judge thought that what had happened was outrageous. He found for Teen Challenge UK and the Assembly has agreed to look again at the matter. I encourage every right-minded person to press the Assembly to make a good decision. For the sake of all those sad addicts and for society at large, let us hope that political correctness is dropped and that Teen Challenge UK has its funding replaced, so that it can help hurting people, which is its slogan.
	I recommend the organisation's presentation, "The Evidence", and I thank all who work there for taking the trouble to get off their backsides and do something about what is a serious problem for society.

John Randall: It is a delight to be able to take part in this debate and especially to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink), who is an excellent and assiduous Member of Parliament. He was self-effacing, but he should not be, because he speaks with such passion for the constituents whom he represents so well.
	It has also be a great pleasure to listen to the maiden speeches today. It does not seem so long ago that I made my own maiden speech, but time passes quickly as one gets older. I look into the mirror and no longer see the same slim young man of eight years ago. He has been replaced by this rather grizzled figure. I am also made to feel old by how young the new Members look, although we also have some more senior Members. I was impressed by the enthusiasm of those who made their maiden speeches and their passion for being here. I hope that that stays with them, because after eight years as an Opposition Member, I have to say that a certain cynicism sometimes creeps upon me. I have been invigorated by that enthusiasm and I hope that I can recapture the fresh-faced enthusiasm that I had all those years ago.
	These debates are one of the better kept secrets of Parliament, and I hope that the new Members who have taken part realise that. The secret has been almost too well kept today, but it is good to see the same faces here. Such debates are a regular occurrence and I am delighted to be able to take part. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) said, we have been in our constituencies during the election and this debate gives us a great opportunity to raise some of the matters that were brought to us as we went around.
	I do not wish to detain the House too long—there is only so much it can take—but I do wish to raise a couple of points, linked by a transport theme. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening) mentioned Heathrow and the noise suffered in her constituency. I pay tribute to her predecessor, Tony Colman, who was assiduous in raising matters that affected those who live closer to the centre of London than those who live in Uxbridge and the borough of Hillingdon. Heathrow is in our borough and while it brings benefits, it also brings many problems. Alongside the current plans for a third runway, I notice that a sixth terminal is now creeping, worryingly, into the discussions, even though the Government have said that that is not in their plans. Anybody who knows the situation will realise that a third runway would mean a sixth terminal. That worries many people because in many instances it would destroy some villages, as would airport expansion wherever it is. That is why I have never in this House advocated not building at Heathrow and favoured somewhere else. We have to look seriously at our aviation needs.
	I was concerned earlier this week when a new lobby group was launched called Project Heathrow. I do not have a problem with people creating lobby groups. That is their right and I am pleased that they do it. This group is headed by a former Member of this House, now Lord Soley. I was concerned that the Secretary of State for Transport went to the meeting. I know this because on television I saw a cream cake land on him thrown by someone who was not too impressed by the idea of expansion. I do not condone that behaviour. My concern was caused by a lack of even-handedness. Many organisations that are opposed to further expansion of Heathrow and I have been trying to meet the Secretary of State to express our views, but unfortunately we have not been granted the same access as the lobby group was on Monday. The Minister is a fair-minded gentleman and I ask him to pass that on, so that when I write asking for a meeting it is borne in mind that even-handedness is a good thing at this level.
	We have a few problems with buses. I will not blame the Government for that because it is not their responsibility, but many of my constituents are concerned. By raising this on the Floor, I hope that those with responsibility will realise how seriously I and others take the matter. The London bus service has unquestionably improved greatly. People are using the buses more and more. In fact one of the problems results from more people using the buses—larger buses have been introduced. Two buses cannot pass each other in some of the smaller roads in my constituency, particularly Cleveland road in Cowley and Wise lane in West Drayton, without mounting the kerb, which they do regularly. Obviously that is a great danger to pedestrians. Many students go along Cleveland road to Brunel university and schoolchildren go to Uxbridge high school and Bishopshalt school. That causes great concern to residents. We do not want to lose the bus service, but something must be done.
	These debates are for local issues and my next item narrows the debate down to one particular bus stand in my constituency. It has caused more justifiable complaints than many other issues in the past few months. Because Hillingdon hospital has redeveloped and built houses on what was part of its site, the buses can no longer stand in order to stop and turn round where they used to. They now go down past residential homes—the very homes that were newly built. This has happened since Christmas. Other houses are also affected by this problem. You can imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that from the early hours of the morning until late at night, just outside the houses, not only are buses stopping and going—before anyone says that this happens everywhere, I should say that there is a bus stop outside my house and I do have that noise but it moves on—but engines are left running, so the residents suffer from fumes as well as noise.
	The residents also have something that I never thought about until I looked into the matter. It is a practical problem that should be looked at, because the bus drivers do not have proper facilities for relieving themselves after driving for some time. I want to discuss this with the union because I am sure that the union would want such facilities for its members. As you can imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is not exactly enhancing the area, and one of the places that the bus stand affects is actually a residential home. The noise and all these other activities are causing a great deal of distress.
	At first we thought that we could get this problem sorted out fairly easily. We have been trying to get various people together, including the hospital, Brunel university and the London borough of Hillingdon—and Transport for London, which seems a little elusive in spots; I understand that that is not uncommon, but I am working on it and I hope that we can get it to resolve this matter. Meanwhile, the residents have become increasingly frustrated, and have started to mount peaceful protests. I have noticed that the buses have been delayed, shall I say, for 10 minutes or so, causing problems. I do not know whether there is such a thing as a normal protester, but if so these residents could not be described as such; they are just so frustrated by what is going on.
	We hear a lot, have heard a lot and are going to hear a lot more about respect. That theme has come up recently and I think we have all noticed that it is lacking in society. I read somewhere, and I think it is probably a better word, that what is actually lacking to a large degree in today's society is consideration for others. That may show itself as antisocial behaviour in a community, as described by many hon. Friends and hon. Members, or lack of consideration by a company, which I would say is what we are seeing in this case. The company does not particularly want the problem but it is not moving fast to remedy it.
	I am raising this matter, which is of great concern to my constituents, on the Floor of the House today, in the hope that we will be able to speed up the process and get the problems sorted out.

Andrew Love: I entirely agree.
	To conclude the point that I was making, the number of doors knocked on rose as the area became more affluent; indeed, in the most affluent part of my constituency the number reached 95 per cent. The net effect is that there is an inverse relationship between the numbers missing from the register and the number of doors that are knocked on. To return to the point made by my hon. Friend, the opposite should be the case. It is critical that we knock on doors in disadvantaged areas for the reasons that she gave.
	I am not drawing conclusions solely about my local authority because I think these things happen across the board, but when I asked my local authority why that situation had come about I was told that it had difficulty in getting people to canvass and often canvassers receive abuse on the doorstep. When we look more closely, however, we find that canvassers are paid less than the minimum wage for the hours they work—significantly less in the case of my local authority. Furthermore, the payments that they receive are based on the number of people that they put on the register. Therefore, there is an in-built incentive to canvas in affluent areas where registration is high. There is an absolute disincentive to go into the areas where the canvassers are needed most. If that is taken together with poverty pay and the perverse incentives of the system, one can understand why it is difficult to get canvassers.
	That brings me to the issue at the core of the debate. The Electoral Commission and the Opposition parties tell us that we need to move to individual registration. I asked the Electoral Commission and my local registration officer what would happen to the register under current circumstances if we moved to individual registration, and I was told that it would decimate the register. I appeal to the Minister to take back to the Department for Constitutional Affairs the view that we need to stand firm against individual registration. We need the maximum number of electors on our electoral registers.
	I would also like to make a number of practical suggestions that are important to the discussion on how we overcome the democratic deficit. I know that a Bill will be heading to the House in the near future, so I would like to make some suggestions as to what should be included in it. First, we must be much more transparent. It is a devil of a job to find out how much money a local authority spends on electoral registration and, of course, they are always stuck for money. We must ring-fence the money. If the money is ring-fenced and endorsed by the Electoral Commission, that will ensure that any political interference with the registration process is minimised.
	Secondly, we must ensure that we have best practice. Electoral registration offices and officers are often parked at the back of a building or in an outhouse. The officers are left entirely to their own devices and they communicate with no one. They need to communicate with each to ensure that we have best practice. Copies of the best practice must be made available so that we ensure that everyone follows it. It is also necessary to ensure that the implementation of best practice is taking place, and one of the ways to do that is through performance review. Carrying out such a review would be an ideal role for the Electoral Commission, which would be able to ensure that things are done properly.
	An issue that has caused contention in the past is the advertising of elections and encouraging the idea that it is important for the public to vote. I suspect that all of us would say that we should do that, but electoral registration officers and departments often feel that such activity falls into the grey area between what is political and non-political in the election process. Any Bill that comes forward should make it clear that urging people to vote is not a political act, and the sponsoring of higher turnouts should be a permanent feature of electoral registration departments.
	A slightly more controversial issue is that of tapping into the information that undoubtedly exists at a local level about who lives where. A number of databases are held at local authority and other local levels that would assist in ensuring that all the people qualified to vote are on the electoral register. I understand that data protection safeguards are necessary, but we should make better use of local information,
	It is, and has been for a long time, an offence not to return an electoral registration form. However, how many prosecutions take place as a result of that? A report from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister says that there have been one or two—that is the extent to which that happens. I understand why local authorities might think that it would not be terribly good publicity to prosecute people for not returning electoral registration forms, but it is important for someone to take responsibility. If we do not think that returning the electoral registration forms is a good idea, we should do away with them, but if we think that that is sensible, we must make arrangements to ensure that a prosecution will proceed if the requirement is flagrantly breached.
	Elections in the UK are safe and secure, despite the recent publicity, and they are certainly fair. I hope that they are accurate, although I have cited problems today. The challenge from the last two elections is not about postal voting or other worries that have been raised, but to address the fact that only 59 per cent. of the electorate turned out in 2001. Although we edged that figure up to 61 per cent. in 2005, none of us can be proud of the fact that we are still at the lowest level for the past 100 years.
	Of course there is an even greater challenge. We often talk about the Americans getting a turnout of less than a 50 per cent. in their elections, but that figure takes account of not only those who did not turn out, but those who were not registered. If we included the people who were not registered in this country when calculating the turnout, we would get a much greater surprise, and the shock would lead us to take action. That is where the real democratic deficit arises. When the electoral administration Bill comes forward, I hope that the Government will accept that we require action to start to deal with such problems.

John Mann: I wish to speak about something that needs to be a key theme for the Government over the next three, four and five years and will certainly be a key aspect of my work in my Bassetlaw constituency: raising aspirations, especially those of young people. Over the past four years in my constituency, the foundation blocks that allow aspirations to be raised have been laid. We have the top health facilities and services in Britain, according to the Government's audited statistics. No other constituency in Britain can match our 11 out of 12 health star ratings. However, we need more, and following what has been promised I anticipate that we will get more, including four new health centres, the building of which is due to be started this year.
	Bassetlaw has some of the best housing stock in Britain. The former Coal Board housing is extremely good and the new housing that has been built over the past 10 years, with a range of sizes and prices, is good, popular and gives people a varied choice. The £62 million that we have secured to achieve the decent homes standard for public housing will consolidate that position and give us an above-average housing stock compared with the rest of the country.
	On education, starting at the end of the year we will get more private finance initiative money per pupil than anywhere else in Britain to rebuild our secondary schools as new, which will provide another vital block to build aspirations.
	The final block is employment. When I made my maiden speech four years ago, I was faced with the 4,500 redundancies that had taken place in the six months before the election. I am now facing the problems associated with full employment and a labour shortage. The problem is not so much a skilled labour shortage, although there is some of that, but an unskilled labour shortage. We have not had to tackle such problems in my area for generations, so I welcome tackling them because they are problems that are due to a successful economy.
	Those bedrocks of success, however, will not in themselves increase people's aspirations. A culture of low aspirations goes back many generations in mining communities. Until recently, our education systems defined people's ability in two ways: for males, the choice was to work underground in the pit, with a job for life; for females, it was to be a housewife and sometimes a textile worker. Those were the choices. Educational standards and success were often perceived in terms of the school that had the best football team and best culture of sport, rather than the one that produced pupils who were capable and able to move onward and upward in life, with a wider range of choices.
	In terms of tackling the deep-rooted problem of low aspirations, the key thing that Parliament and Government can do is to consider ways in which a wider world is brought to people. There are simple and basic ways of doing that, such as the twinning of schools. One small sub-theme of the new plan for Africa is to twin schools in traditional white communities, such as mine, with schools in Africa so that they have an exchange of views. Over time, in this technological age, that exchange will take place via electronic communication and the schools will learn from each other. That could make a great difference in communities like mine.
	I thank the Holocaust Educational Trust, which this week agreed to take six pupils from my constituency to Auschwitz. That will be a tremendous learning opportunity for them. Such an opportunity has not been offered to people in my constituency before. EDF Energy, which owns the two big power stations in my constituency—West Burton and Cottam—has excelled itself in taking primary school children—from year 6 in particular—to the Palace of Westminster over the past four years, and it has agreed to do so again. When I took those young people around the Houses of Parliament, I found to my surprise not how few of them had visited London, but how few had been on a train or to the south of England. Just the visit from some of my schools to London is one small step in raising aspirations. I commend that company for being far-sighted.
	This March, we had another big breakthrough with Provident Financial, which took a group from one of my most underprivileged schools to a youth hostel in the Peak district for an outward bound course. Again, that gave a group of young people opportunities that they had never considered before, and those opportunities will increase the life chances of some of them. They will realise that different options are available to them and that life does not begin and finish on their estates, but can be much wider, wherever they choose to go in their lives. That has to be an undercurrent of the debate.
	I commend the Youth Hostel Association, which celebrates its 75th anniversary this year. It was established precisely to allow working-class young people to get to understand, enjoy and benefit from the wider world outside their work and home community. It remains as relevant in its ethos and work today as it did when it was first established in the 1930s. I am delighted that this summer the Government will provide finance to allow those from less-well-off backgrounds the opportunity to take a break outside their community and for the outdoor pursuits arena to be open to them. I hope that that will be a recurrent funding stream from the Government during the four or five years of this Parliament.
	Another theme that I hope to see emerging is a plan on which we have been working on for some time in my constituency, and that is beginning to come to fruition. We are looking to build the equivalent of the first teaching hospital, but a teaching hospital for sport. We would like to replace one of our pupil referral units as a whole with a teaching sports academy, where not just those who have been excluded from schools, but those who are doing well and those who are beyond school—such as their younger siblings, parents and grandparents—can come. It will be funded on an economic model using the social enterprise that is now well developed in the east midlands through the East Midlands Development Agency.
	Any money made will go back into the community. We will be running the equivalent of a leisure centre, but with everyone within it striving to become sporting coaches and leaders, and we will be looking at the vocational routes that can come from that. This model can create an option of bringing higher education into Bassetlaw for the first time by linking with one of the universities that has degrees in sports and leisure. We hope that it will be a model for providing facilities to the community as well as increasing aspirations, and it is a model that will succeed.
	The project goes further than that in its uniqueness. We are not simply looking at sport but at health and education simultaneously. Money has been spent in my community on healthy living, but this is precisely the kind of vehicle that can create healthy living. That is why I am pleased to see the primary care trust, the LEA and the police contributing to the thought processes as to how we will develop this project into something sustainable.
	The other strong aspect is the voluntary sector and I am delighted that the Prince's Foundation for the Built Community, the Prince's Trust, the Coalfield Regeneration Trust, Sport England, Sporting Chance, the Football Association, the Football Foundation and many other groups have contributed towards creating what could be a beacon for other areas in the country to copy in terms of raising aspiration and improving the health of the community.
	Some of our definitions of neighbourhood renewal are rather bureaucratic and we need to liven them up in a way that provides vision and ownership. As well as fusing together health, education, employment and vocational training, it is young people who are taking the lead. The consultation on the project is not by me or by aging professionals paid by the Government to consult. It is the young people—the teenagers—who are showing the enthusiasm and drive. They recognise that the fusion is important and that whatever is created needs to be cross-generational.
	The example those young people give most strongly is their desire to have a dance studio, which they point out can be recreational and educational, can lead to vocational skills, and can be part of a healthier living programme. Parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, babies and toddlers can go to a dance studio.
	That encapsulates the model we are taking forward. I hope that, in the next two or three years, I can come back to this House and outline our successes. We need some new models for raising aspiration and this is something on which we must succeed.

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) made a powerful contribution to the debate, and I hope that his campaign is successful.
	We have had a wide-ranging debate. It has been a debate of two halves. In the first half, we heard a series of maiden speeches from new Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members, and indeed from a new Scottish National party Member, which were of the highest quality. We will all take away from the debate the view that the House will be all the richer for the people who have arrived to serve in it during this Parliament.In the second half of the debate, the contributions from Government Members have been sparse, with a hint of filler in the afternoon's proceedings. One interesting feature of proceedings since our return after the election is that, day after day and in debate after debate, the Government Benches have been empty. The Government have not had enough speakers to keep the debate going. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) said at the start of his speech that he had hoped to make a contribution during the debate on the Queen's Speech, but had been unable to do so. He clearly missed the two days when the debate finished early and collapsed because of a lack of Government Members who wished to speak. If he had been here, he would have had more than enough time to contribute to the debate.

Chris Grayling: Some of us would say that in a debate where there were five, six, seven or eight Opposition speakers in a row there were not quite enough Government Members to take part. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has a different perspective on life from me.

Chris Grayling: Well, we will not test that this afternoon.
	We heard a powerful maiden speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr. Walker). I congratulate him on his first contribution. He paid generous tribute to his predecessor Dame Marion Roe, who I think will be much missed by all Conservative Members and, I hope, by members of all parties. It was clear from his speech that my hon. Friend will be able to provide an ample alternative for his constituents, and will do them proud when representing them here.
	My hon. Friend talked about a number of places in his constituency. I remember just one, Hoddesdon. I used to go there as a student in my proudest days when, as captain of the Cambridge university tenpin bowling club, I led it to its first victory for nine years in the Hoddesdon bowling alley.
	We heard a much more serious, much more important speech from my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), who is one of the leading authorities in the House on care homes and care for the elderly. He rightly drew attention to the real problems that are occurring in the sector today. We are nothing as a society if we do not provide proper care for the elderly. My hon. Friend was right to say that what is going on in the care home sector is not acceptable, right to identify ways in which the Government have contributed to the problems, and right to emphasise to Ministers the need for something to be done, and done quickly.
	I must apologise to the hon. Member for Taunton (Jeremy Browne) for not being here for his maiden speech. I had slipped out for some lunch, but I am told that he made a powerful contribution. He spoke of antisocial behaviour affecting even areas well away from our major city centres, and called for autonomy for Somerset enabling it to provide its own police force. This is my message to the hon. Gentleman. My constituency is in a county with a relatively small police force, and even with such local controls the problems do not disappear, especially when—as is the case in many counties—the police are so badly underfunded.
	What can I say about the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps)? It was a brilliant maiden speech, made without a note. My hon. Friend will clearly make a major contribution to his constituency. He too paid a generous tribute to his predecessor. Although when I shadowed her I had big political differences with her, I think that all of us in the House admire the way in which she managed to overcome very serious illness to continue her job as a Minister and make a contribution here during her eight years in Parliament. I hope that we all wish her well for the future.
	From the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) we heard something of a rerun of her speech earlier in the week, but she is a distinguished figure on the Government Benches. She is a powerful orator, and her contributions are always welcome.
	We heard another maiden speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands). He too will clearly be a highly effective representative of his constituents. As he said, he is the first Conservative representative of the constituency for a number of years, and he is the first Conservative Member of Parliament for Hammersmith for a rather longer time. I wish him well as he works to represent the area—although I must add that the past few weeks have been a time when, as a supporter of Manchester United, I have not been entirely happy to see the streets of his constituency bedecked in blue. I rather hope that they will not be bedecked in blue again until the next general election.
	We heard another very effective and thoughtful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard). He, too, will be an effective defender of his constituents. He did well to remind the Government that, after eight years, they cannot always blame what happened before they came to office for the things that are going wrong in his constituency. He talked with great effect about the rural nature of his constituency and the importance to town dwellers of maintaining the fabric of our countryside.
	I was delighted to hear the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Fraser). I was not in Parliament when he was here previously but I know of him and I know that he will be welcomed back to the Conservative Benches. That said, we are disappointed, and I am sure that he is too, that his predecessor has left this place. She was a tremendous contributor to the House of Commons, and a distinguished member of the previous Government. I was personally very disappointed when she left the Front-Bench team; she was a great loss. She has moved to another place, where I have no doubt she will continue to make distinguished contributions. She has been one of the major political contributors to this House and to this country over the past 20 years, and will be much missed.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk picked up on one of the themes that has been consistently discussed this afternoon: the absence of adequate policing in too many parts of our country, and the prevalence of antisocial behaviour. Too many police officers are not able to do their job properly because they are tied down by paperwork and by the lack of numbers on the streets on a Friday and Saturday night in particular.
	I speak with passion about that matter because, in my constituency on a Friday and Saturday night, there are just not enough police officers out on the streets. If a couple of police cars are covering the whole area, we are lucky. That is the absurd situation even in a city such as Manchester, where perhaps only a dozen officers are on duty at any one time on a Saturday night. It is simply not good enough and the Government have to get to grips with the problem over the next four or five years.
	I particularly welcome the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Jenny Willott) to the House because we have much in common. She is the sixth councillor from the London borough of Merton to be elected to the House in the past few years. She and I were both newly elected councillors in Merton in 1998. We were perhaps not as assiduous in our council duties as we might have been, as we moved quite quickly to new political lands—she to Cardiff to fight the Cardiff, Central constituency in 2001, I to Epsom and Ewell. Merton has been an effective starting point for the political careers of many in the House. Her generous tribute to Jon Owen Jones was an appropriate one. Although we had our differences, as we all do, Jon Owen Jones, who I knew from serving on many Committees, was an excellent Member of Parliament. I regret his departure. I enjoyed his company and I hope that the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central can live up to the precedent that he set. It was probably a wise choice to move on from Merton to Cardiff as West Barnes ward, which she served, is Conservative again. There are no Liberal Democrat councillors in the London borough of Merton and, of course, Wimbledon has a Conservative MP again, so I suspect that she is better off where she is now.
	On the subject of Merton councillors, my congratulations go also to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), both on her maiden speech and on her success at the election. She was instrumental in reducing the number of former Merton councillors in the House by defeating Tony Colman, who was leader of Merton council. Rightly, she talked generously about him, but I am tremendously pleased that she is now in the House. She carved a name for herself on election night and I am sure she will continue to do so in the years ahead.
	My hon. Friend took us on a fascinating tour of her constituency and talked about some of the charitable, voluntary and community work that she has been involved in. In that connection, she brings valuable experience to the House and I am delighted to see her here. She will also be an important champion for the district line, which, as she knows, and as I know as a former Wimbledon resident, needs some effective champions.
	The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) is the youngest Member of the House. She has two things in common with her party leader: he was the youngest person in the House when he was first elected and, as she said, the west highland way links their two constituencies. I am disappointed that she did not follow in the tradition of representatives of her constituency by calling for the resignation of the Secretary of State for Scotland. She urged us all to visit her constituency and hoped that we would not go for political purposes.
	I suspect that there will be some who seek to wrest the seat back from her, and when they come knocking on her door, it will not be entirely to see the sights in her constituency, but I wish her well in the House. She is absolutely right to talk about the importance of engaging young people in the political process and of having hon. Members of different age groups in the House. It is clear from the results of the election that age diversity in the House is increasing, which can only be for the better.
	The hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) made an interesting speech, which I interpreted as the first frost. When a Labour Member rises to express concerns about the economy, to call for the relaxation of inflation targets, to declare that the era of high inflation is long past and that we should intervene in the currency markets, I take that as a sign that Government Members are beginning to get a little jumpy about what has happened in the last eight years. They built on the foundations provided by the last Conservative Government and it seems that the economic tide may not be as one way as Labour Members have claimed in recent years.
	The hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Greg Mulholland) provided the last maiden speech today. He spoke effectively about his constituency and how he came to be here. His point about his involvement in the business of the House through its education programme was telling. It is beholden on us all to support the education programme and to encourage young people who are interested in politics to visit and see what we do. We should be open in explaining how it all works and try to make it more transparent than it can sometimes appear. We also need to encourage the next generation, which will come on behind us, to be as active and interested in politics as we have been ourselves.
	The hon. Member for Bedford (Patrick Hall) spoke about the problems and unfairnesses in the council tax system. We have received mixed messages from the Government about what they propose to do with the council tax system. I do not believe that the alternative offered by the Liberal Democrats is the right one—[Interruption.] Indeed, we do not really know what their policy is nowadays. I certainly believe that we have to reduce the burden of council tax on our pensioners, which is what Conservatives sought to do at the general election. I hope that the Government will listen to that message on local government finance and act to help our pensioners in the years ahead.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) made a characteristically powerful speech about a variety of issues in his constituency. I offer him my best wishes for Saturday and my best wishes to his daughter for tomorrow. I have a son who is an active football player and I know how proud parents can be on the touchline. I wish him well. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) also made some powerful points about Teen Challenge UK and I hope that he is successful in securing funding.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) spoke in broad terms about the challenges facing his constituency. When he described himself as "grizzled", I thought that he was being hard on himself. We in the House simply regard him as timeless. He speaks as the voice of Uxbridge in more ways than one, as anyone who tuned into local radio stations over London in the past few months will have heard. He talked about the challenge that the growth in demand for travel will present in his constituency. It will be difficult to achieve the right balance in this country over the next few years. We must be wise and listen to the voices of caution about the need to strike the right balance between supporting our economy and recognising the interests of residents in constituencies such as my hon. Friend's and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening).
	We have had a good debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in which many issues have been brought to the fore. It has revealed to the House how much commonality there is across the country in the challenges that we all face over policing, the future of the health service and transport services. There is an important lesson to be learned from this afternoon's debate. Although the general election led to the loss, either through retirement or defeat, of many valued colleagues on both sides of the House, our new intake of hon. Members has enriched this place with clear, articulate and effective contributions to our proceedings.

Nigel Griffiths: Yes, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the chance to reinforce his message. I praise the work of the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry in driving the skills agenda forward in the work place and encouraging people to ensure that they have the skills and personal confidence necessary. I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw for raising the initiative of schools twinning with Africa. James Gillespie's high school in my constituency has done so successfully, and I commend the experience that my hon. Friend and we in south Edinburgh have had.
	More experienced hon. Members raised other issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) talked about school closures. She will join me in wondering how, when providing 28,000 extra teachers, one is faced with unnecessary school closures—some of course are necessary—during an election period. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills will note her points. In all honesty, I am not sure that any moratorium of the type she suggested is practical or could be enforced. If she has further thoughts on that, I know that she will communicate them as effectively as she always does.
	My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) spoke with detailed knowledge of the ports authority issue. She will know that the Department for Transport announced the Future of Transport White Paper. Its intention is to examine carefully the national framework of ports policy once decisions have been taken on outstanding applications for major container port development. She will track that with considerable interest.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) raised the issues of housing investment and of the economy. I know he will welcome the fact that we have tripled investment in housing capital from £1.65 billion in 1997 to £5 billion now, and that that has helped reduce the number of non-decent houses by 1 million in that time frame. None the less, it is clear that he has some advice for the Chancellor on how to run the economy. The Chancellor always welcomes such advice and I am sure that my hon. Friend will find a way during debates and Treasury questions to raise his views with the Chancellor, and have the Treasury specialists pore over them and see what might be gleaned and gained from them.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Patrick Hall) raised the issue of local government funding. Having lived through several local government funding crises as well as the revaluations—indeed, my maiden speech was on that very subject, which allowed me to take a seat from the Conservatives for the first time in 100 years. That was, of course, the council tax, more popularly known as the poll tax—

Evan Harris: I am grateful to the House for the opportunity to raise the important issue of the closure of burial grounds and, in particular, the controversy about the proposed closure of the burial ground—the churchyard—in Cumnor in my constituency.
	I welcome the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Harriet Harman), to her place and congratulate her on her appointment.
	I am conscious of the fact that this Adjournment debate is the last business before the brief recess, so it is just as well, given that this is such a controversial issue, that there is a time limit on the debate, although I hope that we will be able to cover all that needs to be covered in that time.
	The debate relates to the application by the parochial church council, the vicar and the churchwardens in Cumnor for the Privy Council, on the advice of the Home Office, to declare the churchyard there closed. There is a long-standing disagreement between the local residents and, in particular, their representatives on the Cumnor parish council and the vicar. I happen very much to understand the point of the concerns raised by my constituents and Cumnor parish council, but no personal criticism is intended or meant to be implied in what follows of the vicar of Cumnor, who has to balance a number of issues. I have had a chance to speak to an officer of the diocese about its perspective, and I hope to speak to the vicar in due course.
	I want to cover some background issues that relate to the shortage of space for burial, to the suggested changes to the law and in the way that we should look for more burial space and, indeed, to the timetable of action, or inaction, on this matter. I shall then come to the specific case of Cumnor parish council and its concerns about the proposed closure of the churchyard at the local parish church.
	I am pleased to say that I have had the opportunity, albeit only today, to pass on to the Minister the details of my concerns and to raise with her in advance some of the questions about which I seek answers. I hope therefore that we can made progress on the substantive issues, but I am the first to recognise that the law involved is complicated—that may be why it has taken so long to make progress towards solving the problem—and that some of the issues raised by this case are also complicated. Nevertheless, I think that we can made progress because there is clearly a need to do so.
	As the Government identified in their consultation document issued in January 2004, some seven years ago, in 1997, the London planning advisory committee, working in conjunction with the relevant burial authorities and their representatives in London, carried out research into the existing capacity for burials in Greater London. In summary, they raised the concern that there was only seven years' burial capacity in inner London and 18 years in outer London. Clearly, as those figures were averages, some boroughs would be very short of capacity. There is no reason to believe that the situation outside London is significantly better. Indeed, in some cases, it may be worse.
	The long-standing view of those with an interest in such issues is that the best approach to take, if we are to prevent the acquisition of land for more burial space and the associated cost, is to consider further, and then to implement, a form of the lift and deepen practice, whereby bodies in existing graves that are either more than 75 years old or more than 100 years old, for example, are exhumed to be reburied at a lower depth, so that further new burials can take place on top.
	Progress has been very slow. Clearly, sensitivities are involved, and where cultural sensitivities, perhaps moral sensitivities and spiritual matters are involved and where people have deep-seated views and various religions may differ, it is important that the matter is handled sensitively. Of course, I accept that, but that does not mean that such issues should not be handled at all and that there should be endless delay. Indeed, that may exacerbate the problems caused to people facing bereavement and the need to bury in the meantime.
	Successive Governments have acted slowly. For example, an article in The Guardian of 13 May 1999 stated, although I do not know on what basis, that
	"The Home Office is expected to publish a consultation document this summer"
	on the reuse of space in crowded cemeteries. That was the summer of 1999. No such document was produced, but an article in the Edinburgh Evening News of 26 April 2000 discussing a proposal made by Tam Dalyell, the then MP for Linlithgow, stated:
	"The home office today confirmed it is considering the re-use of burial grounds."
	However, we still did not have even a Green Paper.
	Julie Rugg of York university's cemetery research group was cited in an article in The Guardian of 2 September 2000. She said:
	"We need to know why the government is not saying anything. I think there is a fear at ministerial level that people are going to find this area quite distasteful."
	I do not dispute the existence of such fear but it is no excuse for inaction. We should proceed with sensitivity. However, although I am alleging slow progress, I do not suggest that the Minister has anything to do with that, as responsibility for the matter has only recently been transferred from the Home Office to the Department for Constitutional Affairs.
	The article quoted the Home Office as saying:
	"We will be publishing a consultation paper, but we don't have a date for it and there is nothing imminent."
	We finally received the consultation paper in January 2004, so the Home Office spokesman was right four years before—it certainly was not imminent. An article in The Times of 23 June 2003 pointed out that the Home Office had still not published its research into whether old graves should be reused three years after the research was conducted. I do not know whether the research has ever been published, but there is certainly a feeling that not much progress has been made.
	The burial and cemeteries advisory group was set up in the Home Office following a Select Committee report of March 2001 that stated that the Government must make progress. The consultation document published in January 2004 was the result, although the report should have been made by the end of 2002. The consultation period finished almost a year ago and we await publication of the response to the document. I hope that the Government will move swiftly to make proposals for whatever legislation is required. I certainly hope that they will adopt a policy and will not allow further delay by citing the need for more research. There is plenty of research and it is time for action. There is a shortage of burial space in local communities, including Cumnor, which brings me to the need for this debate.
	Why is the church in Cumnor seeking to have its churchyard closed? There are several motives although they may not be valid reasons for closure. The first is that the churchyard is full. I shall return to that point. The second could be to transfer the costs of maintaining the churchyard to the local authority, as that is what happens when churchyards close. I shall not discuss that motive in this debate, although it is known that some communities fear that a church facing financial difficulties and with various funding priorities is not keen to maintain churchyards and so favours their closure to save money.
	Another argument is that the church does not want to face the difficulties of negotiating over the nature of memorials. It has been made clear that that is not a legitimate reason for the Home Office to agree a closure, but, according to the vicar, it appears to be an issue in this case. In an article in the Cumnor parish news—I understand that these points were made and recorded in the minutes of a working group seeking to find a compromise subsequent to the appearance of the article—the vicar states:
	"In the past decade and particularly since the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, in 1997, families have become much more involved in funeral arrangements. Gone are the days (thankfully!) when people would meekly accept what the vicar said. This extends to the memorials that people want. The Diocese of Oxford has strict regulations regarding which memorials are permitted in churchyards. These are to maintain the character of the churchyard—to ensure that the churchyard is a pleasant and peaceful place to be in for all visitors. The PCC felt that it would become increasingly difficult to enforce these regulations without causing significant hurt to families who wanted a memorial that was not permitted. Statistics from other churchyards and burial grounds indicate that this is the case, and, indeed, you may have heard of such stories in the media in recent months."
	Under a paragraph with the heading "Legal Closure", the article continues:
	"The PCC therefore decided to seek to legally close the churchyard."
	That implies that, as well as the assertion that the churchyard is full, the one motive was that the vicar's pastoral duties would be undermined by disputes—one can see his point—with family members about memorials. If this is happening up and down the country, there may need to be clearer and more consistent rules, but it is not an argument for closing churchyards.
	The real argument is whether the churchyard is full, and this is one of the key questions. A letter that I have seen from the parish council to the Home Office of 26 November 2003 points out:
	"During the course of its discussions members of the Working Party (including the Vicar) visited the churchyard and identified an area that could be used for new burials.
	It is the Parish Council's contention that if the Vicar accepts that further burials could take place in the churchyard then it is perverse to argue for closure on the grounds that there is no proper room for new graves."
	Cumnor parish council is of the view that there could be proper space in the churchyard for new graves.
	One of the key questions is whether, when talking about the potential space for burials, the church is talking about reburials and the Home Office does not recognise that as an option. I would be grateful for clarification from the Minister on that. It is the view of some people to whom I have spoken that existing ground—particularly consecrated ground—that has been used for burials could be used again for reburials after a period of time. It is not clear on what basis the Home Office argues in some of its correspondence that it is not permitted, allowed or lawful for reburials to take place. The Burial Act 1857 precludes the digging up of human remains except with a licence from the Home Office, and those licences or exemptions—or a faculty granted on the ecclesiastical side of the law—are often granted when churchyards need to be changed for new road construction or development. It is not clear why such an exemption cannot be granted in the case of permission to rebury.
	We have been made aware in the parish of other cases—specifically that of Brightlingsea town council. The judgment in that case referred to the fact that, in the diocese of Bath and Wells, reburial is the policy before closure is considered. It seems to me peculiar that that should be the position in that case.
	I quote from the judgment:
	"In Re West Pennard Churchyard 1992.1.WLR 32 Newsom Q.C. Ch. held:
	'But I should point out that no churchyard is full and ripe for closure until all parts of it in which reburial is possible have been buried over again at least once. Again, until closure, all legal burial rights continue. Over the centuries churchyards have been buried several times over and it cannot be said that a churchyard is nearly full considering only the areas which have never been used for burials. When there are no unused spaces, parishes sometimes seek to apply for closure in order to pass the expense of running the churchyard to the local authority'"—
	that relates to the motive of the transfer of cost that I raised earlier.
	The judgment continues:
	"It is the standard practice in this diocese (Bath and Wales), and has been so for at least the last ten years, to advise parishes that the Department of the Environment will not allow closure of a churchyard except after careful enquiry as to how far areas already used for burial can be used again".
	If that is the case in that example, it seems strange that the Home Office has made it clear that it does not generally consider the possibility of reburial after any period—even in consecrated ground, and thus under ecclesiastical law in some way—to be valid grounds for resisting an application to close a churchyard.
	When determining whether the churchyard is full, we must ask the basis on which it is considered to be full. The vicar made the following point in the article in the Cumnor parish news a few years ago:
	"The churchyard has been full for the past thirty-three years. That is, there have been no burials of bodies (except in existing family graves) during this period, since there have been no unused plots."
	If that is the basis of the argument, I suggest, as the parish council certainly argues, that one would need evidence before asserting that that demonstrated that the churchyard was full.
	After a similar contentious debate during the Brightlingsea case, the Home Office refused the application for closure because there was evidence that the churchyard was not full. I would like clarification from the Minister on a question that was put to me by a clerk of Cumnor parish council: where is the burden of the evidence?
	The parish council argues:
	"in the light of the Brightlingsea decision the Home Office asked Cumnor Parish Council the wrong question. In essence, they asked us if we knew of any areas in the Churchyard that were unused."
	The parish council is not an expert on the use of the churchyard, so it answered in the negative. The Home Office should perhaps have asked the parish council whether it knew for sure that the churchyard was full, or whether the church authorities, which wished to secure the closure, could provide evidence that it was full. A geophysical survey was done in the Brightlingsea case to try to identify whether there were unused spaces. I do not think that it is sufficient to consider such a contentious matter simply on the basis that there were no burials because it was judged that there were no unused plots.
	The parish council has tried to identify other burial grounds in my constituency, but it has not been successful, despite quite a lot of effort. I argue that it would be inappropriate to allow the closure while the Government—and, I hope, Parliament—are considering whether reuse would be possible, given that no one is arguing that that would not be likely to create a source of space in the existing churchyard. Indeed, previous vicars are on record as supporting that idea. Additionally, the closure would be inappropriate given that the applicant has not provided evidence that the churchyard is full.
	Will the Minister reassure me that whoever is in charge of the matter—I guess that it is her Department—will not grant the closure application, at least for the time being? I urge her to press on with all speed with producing proposals for legislation to increase the ability to reuse space in burial grounds that has not been used for many decades and, indeed, more than 100 years.

Harriet Harman: I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on securing the debate and choosing its subject. He has clearly demonstrated that he has examined carefully the general issue across the board, as well as the specific case in the village in his constituency. In doing so, the hon. Gentleman has shone a light on something that hon. Members do not rush to discuss. None the less, we all know that it is of great importance.
	Burial grounds are a source of strong community feeling, especially in rural areas, but also in my constituency in London. The upkeep and maintenance of our local cemetery in Nunhead is a keenly felt local issue. There were also strong local feelings when we planned to build social housing on the site of an old church, which had a churchyard with remains in it. I know well the issues that he raises.
	In commenting on the general position and what the Government are doing about it, I hope to reassure the hon. Gentleman that things are happening and that progress is under way. One of his concerns is that the Government are dragging their feet and not enough is happening. I also want to deal with his concerns about the Cumnor burial ground.
	The hon. Gentleman is right that in 2001 the Environment Sub-Committee investigated the country's burial arrangements and delivered its report on our cemeteries. It found a number of shortcomings, in particular the way of setting and enforcing standards, long-term problems regarding the maintenance and provision of burial space, a need to find the appropriate balance between the utilitarian and aesthetic aspects of burial grounds, and a need to review our antiquated and inconsistent burial laws.
	The Government have undertaken much work since then to tackle the issues. To assist them, they set up an advisory group, drawn widely from people involved in burials, religious organisations, groups with environmental and historical interests, and others. We commissioned and published the findings of a research study into cemetery management, and last year we published a consultation paper on a review of burial law. We have initiated a survey of all burial grounds in England and Wales. We have also worked closely with those involved in burials to draft advice and guidance to burial ground operators on the management of cemeteries, and on ensuring the safety of memorials within burial grounds. We hope to issue those documents a little later this year.
	We are considering the detailed comments received on the burial law consultation paper. We also need to take account of the burial grounds survey that was launched earlier this year. There is a wide range of issues to address, but the reuse of old burial grounds for new burials and other matters is one of the most significant and sensitive concerns.
	For the past 150 years, that has not been a problem. Where churchyards and other burial grounds have become full, additional land has been acquired by the church or the local council, and burials have simply taken place in another location. That option is no longer so easy, especially for urban communities. There is competition from other land uses—such as housing—and the price of land has increased, if any suitable land is available in the first place. The result has been to create new burial grounds away from the focus of the local community. In some cases, they are physically distant and far less convenient for the community to which they relate. It is also harder to find the necessary funds to maintain burial grounds that are unused.
	The hon. Gentleman questioned our approach and raised a number of the issues that came to light in response to the consultation paper. The questions include: can we can continue to create new burial grounds indefinitely; is that the best use of land in short supply; and, even if we did want to allocate extra resources to buy land to create more burial spaces, would they be too far away and do we not have better uses for the land? We were also asked whether we should be doing what the hon. Gentleman suggested—lifting and deepening, which provides more space vertically in a burial ground. Would that policy be compatible with our commitment to sustainable development?
	We raised those questions in the consultation paper, which we published last year. The responses varied widely. Most of the people involved in the burial business were in favour of reusing burial grounds in some way. Most of the individuals who responded were seriously concerned about that suggestion and not so happy with it.
	Many individuals want to retain their local parish churchyard as an essential part of their community life, but many others believe that respect for the dead and, ultimately, for the living demands that human remains be allowed to lie undisturbed in their final resting place. Even within a village, there are people who want to keep using the churchyard and others who feel that the respect of the community must be given to its deceased members, so the yard must not be disturbed. We have to reconcile those opposing views and reach a sensible way forward. That is what we will be addressing and we would want to bring forward proposals soon.
	I should like now to come to the question of the Cumnor churchyard. Whether a churchyard is full is a question of fact. Therefore, there is a question of evidence as to whether it is full or not. If it is asserted and not challenged that it is full, that might be regarded as an adequate basis for the Secretary of State to accept that it is full and to accept a closure. In the case of Cumnor, the argument is that the churchyard is not actually full, although there is a desire to close it. Therefore, the question of its being full having been challenged, it is important for officials in my Department to look closely at the basis on which they will gather the evidence as to whether it is full in order to make their recommendation to the Secretary of State for him to make his decision.
	I want to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that nothing will happen that will take the local community by surprise and that the evidence will be made plain and a decision taken on it. I agree that the churchyard is not, as a matter of evidence, full just because the people who run the churchyard say that there are no vacancies and that they are not prepared to make extra plots available.
	In relation to the churchyard in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, full consideration of the evidence will be given and we will go about that in a transparent way. The decision will be based on evidence and will not take anybody by surprise. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman assisting me in my task of reaching a conclusion on these difficult issues as we take this forward as a matter of Government policy.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Six o'clock.